Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD [Lords]

PORT OF LONDON BILL [Lords]

WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE BOARD BILL [Lords]

WILTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

BRIDGE STREET BAPTIST CHURCH, BANBURY BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

THE READING CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (MELTON MOWBRAY AND SHEFFIELD) BILL

As amended, considered.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Educational Aids (Purchase Tax)

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of purchase tax is payable on plastic-covered display boards used in schools for showing geometric shapes.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): Not all such boards are within the scope of the tax. If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of the case he has in mind I will send him a definite ruling.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Would my hon. Friend comment on the fact that all boards which show geometric shapes are subject to purchase tax but those which show circular graphs are not? Does not this indicate that it is time we abolished purchase tax on educational aids?

Mr. Higgins: I think that my hon. Friend will find that there are different rates of tax for different kinds of board, depending on their normal use. But it may depend on the items placed on the board, which are sometimes not taxed at the same time as the boards. However, if my hon. Friend will send me precise details, I will look into the matter.

Mr. Selwyn Gammer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will review the imposition of purchase tax on equipment used in schools and colleges.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to waive purchase tax on educational supplies to local authorities.

Mr.Higgins: Although there is no general provision for the relief of local authorities from indirect taxation, equipment which is of a kind principally used for educational purposes is catered for by a number of specific exemptions. A new category of projectors was added to these exemptions from 1st November this year, and the field is kept under review.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend. Would he help me to understand why many kinds of equipment used in schools are similar to equipment that is used outside and why education authorities such as the Inner London Education Authority have had to provide a great deal of extra money to make it possible to buy these items? Would he bear this matter in mind?

Mr. Higgins: This strikes at the fundamental principle of the tax, which is that it should be based on the nature of the product at the time when it is taxed, rather than on the end use.

Mr. Marks: Is the Minister aware of the considerable difficulties in the way of manufacturers who supply to Government Departments and who do not pay tax on these items, as compared with suppliers who indirectly supply Government Departments and the local authorities? Is he also aware that this is a matter in which there needs to be an extension of local authority spending? Will he examine the whole question in time for the Budget next year?

Mr. Higgins: I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point, but there are exemptions for specific Government Departments. The local authorities are not included in that exemption because their purchases raise separate questions.

Industrial Disputes (Repayment of Income Tax)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the average time which elapses between the first withdrawal of labour in an industrial dispute and the first repayment of income tax to those involved.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): The information needed to make this estimate is not available.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Nevertheless, would not my hon. Friend agree that when a firm goes on strike, the one department which invariably keeps operating is the department responsible for ensuring the recovery of tax to employees on strike? Will he consider, as a useful experiment, transferring responsibility for the repayment of tax


to individuals involved in industrial disputes to East Kilbride where they might find that they suffered the months and months of delay in repayment of rebates which my constituents have been experiencing in the past year?

Mr. Macmillan: As my hon. Friend indicated, this matter is primarily the responsibility of the firm concerned. It also, incidentally, depends, partly at least, on how long a striker goes on receiving his ordinary pay after being on strike and on how long in arrears he is normally paid.

Mr. Taverne: Will the Government consider the possibility of putting Pay-As-You-Earn on a proportionate as opposed to a cumulative basis?

Mr. Macmillan: That is an entirely separate matter. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will bear it in mind.

Disabled Persons (Tax Relief)

Mr. John Hannam: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek powers to provide tax relief for disabled persons who take up full employment.

Mr. Higgins: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion, but there are serious difficulties in the way of providing special tax reliefs of this kind.

Mr. Hannam: Would my hon. Friend agree that every encouragement should be given to disabled people who try to take up full employment, having regard to the fact that they pay the full tax rate on their often lower-than-average incomes, although they have to contend with high diet expenses and special expenses on clothing?

Mr. Higgins: I have very great sympathy for my hon. Friend's point, but this is a matter which is not best dealt with through the tax system but rather through the arrangements made by the Department of Health and Social Security.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that there are situations in which disabled people pay income tax the burden of which is in excess of that paid by normal people and that this greater burden resulting from their disability is easily recognisable?

Mr. Higgins: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but, as I said, I do not believe that this matter is best handled through the tax system.

Investment Allowances (Companies Trading with South Africa)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to provide that companies trading with South Africa receive no investment allowances.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Investment allowances were withdrawn by the last Administration: there are no proposals for reintroducing them.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does the hon. Gentleman treat in exactly the same way firms which, on the one hand, support the South African Government, for example, I.C.I., which runs the South African arms industry, and Unilever, which has three factories employing 6,000 workers, both black and white, on a segregated basis, and, on the other hand, Bookers, Bovis and Wates, all of whom have moral scruples about dealing with apartheid? Does he make no distinction between the scruples of the one group, and the unscrupulousness of the other?

Mr. Macmillan: If the hon. Gentleman is still referring to investment allowances, as I said in my original Answer there are now no such things; they were withdrawn by the last Administration. We have no proposals to reintroduce them. If he is referring to standard depreciation allowances, all exporters are treated the same regardless of the markets to which goods are exported.

Budget

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he proposes to present his Budget for 1971–72.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): I must ask my hon. Friend to wait for an announcement at the appropriate time.

Mr. Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although this might be regarded as the usual Answer to the usual Question, there is far more than the usual interest in his first Budget? Is he further


aware that there is a widespread confidence that this will prove to be the first of a series of Conservative Budgets which during the period of this Parliament will seek to simplify the tax system—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—and reduce the weight of taxation which over the last six years has grown far too high?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the Budget debate. Questions must be brief.

Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend may say that this is the usual Treasury Answer to the usual Question. Perhaps I could point out that my background note says, "It is not clear what, if anything, lies behind Mr. Shaw's question." But I hope my hon. Friend will think that on taxation we have made a good start in our short period of office, and we shall hope to do better in the years to come.

Mr. Barnett: On that part of the right hon. Gentleman's Budget which he has already announced, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree with those independent commentators who have said that they disagree with him that it is being neutral on demand? Does he wish in any way to modify what he said previously, in view of the additional public expenditure which has been announced since?

Mr. Barber: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to what I said previously about the effect of those measures on demand. I agree with those people who say that to have cut the standard rate of income tax and to have cut the rate of corporation tax, in each case for the first time in eleven years, at least is an advance on the taxation policy of the previous Government.

National Savings

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in the amount invested in National Savings between July and October, 1970; and what was the corresponding figure in 1969.

Mr. Barber: The net amount invested in National Savings increased between July and October, 1970 by £66·9 million. In the corersponding period of 1969 there was a decrease of £27·5 million. The whole House will be encouraged by this change.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer not agree that this welcome and substantial increase in national savings since the advent of the present Government is a very clear manifestation of the confidence of the people in the handling by this Government of our economy?

An Hon. Member: Well read.

Mr. Barber: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is very encouraging indeed.

Mr. Duffy: Will the Chancellor confirm that savings both in total and expressed as a percentage of total personal disposable income, which is a more searching test than that which his hon. Friend cares conveniently to employ, were higher in the second quarter of 1970 than in the third quarter of 1964?

Mr. Barber: It would be better if hon-Gentlemen opposite, instead of indulging in churlish carping at political success, were to give three cheers when we get a little bit of good news.

Mr. Taverne: If the Chancellor is not concerned with carping, would he not agree that in the first six months of the year both national savings and personal savings generally set a pattern which has since been continued?

Mr. Barber: There were, of course, good years and bad years. The simple fact is that the record of personal savings under the Labour Government, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will be the first to agree, was not very good. We are doing better now.

Special Drawing Rights

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent consultations he has held with officials of the International Monetary Fund in regard to future issues of special drawing rights.

Mr. Barber: None, Sir.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. Friend regard the basis of the distribution of special drawing rights as satisfactory, particularly from the point of view of less-developed countries?

Mr. Barber: This was one matter that was discussed by the Commonwealth


Finance Ministers and myself at our recent conference. The proposal to link special drawing rights with aid is a very important question. As my hon. Friend will know, the executive directors of the International Monetary Fund are considering a possible study of this matter.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the Government's attitude still in favour of the so-called link clause between special drawing rights and development aid?

Mr. Barber: The point I made to my colleagues from the Commonwealth, which is the view of Her Majesty's Government, is that this is something that is well worth studying. On the other hand, there are difficulties, and we had better wait and see what the I.M.F. executive directors do, in the light of the clear statement I have made and also in the light of the views of the other executive directors.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: At the Stockholm Conference, for instance, leading to the activation of S.D.R.s, the attitude of the British Government was firmly in favour of the link clause if we could get one. Has there been any change in the attitude of the Government since then?

Mr. Barber: We are certainly not opposed in principle to the idea, if that is what the right hon. Gentleman means.

Income Tax (Disincentive Effects)

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what practical study he has made of the disincentive effects of income tax at various levels of income and marginal rates of incidence.

Mr. Macmillan: A number of studies of this question have been made over the years and the results have been considered by the Government.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Will my hon. Friend consider publishing these surveys in detail? Will he bear in mind particularly that a marginal tax rate of 6s. 5d. for the average man is bad enough but that withdrawal of spending power at the top and bottom of society well in excess of 10s. in the £ is certainly disincentive?

Mr. Macmillan: We are keeping the question of disincentive very closely under review and are keeping in touch with those working in the universities on

this subject, but I do not think that the pattern and the conclusions are firm enough to warrant publication at this stage.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the 6d. reduction in income tax announced by his right hon. Friend is equivalent to a 28 per cent. increase in gross income at the higher levels of remuneration? If this is not inflationary, why not?

Mr. Macmillan: Because, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, this still leaves people at the higher end of the earned income scale paying a much greater proportion of their income in tax than anyone else, and still facing a very high tax bill.

National Savings

Mr. Le Marchant: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to encourage savings through life assurance and unit trusts.

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to encourage saving through building societies.

Mr. Higgins: I am not yet ready to add anything to the answers my right hon. Friend gave on savings on 3rd November.—[Vol. 805, c. 832.]

Mr. Le Marchant: Is my hon. Friend aware what an advantage it would be to the insurance industry if it were exempted from paying short-term capital gains tax, and equally if unit trusts were exempted from capital gains tax—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—quite right; I am sorry—where there would be no net disinvestment.

Mr. Higgins: Certainly I will take into account the point made by my hon. Friend in the general review of this question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] On the contrary, I was making it up as I went along. The important point here is to increase the total savings so that the postponement of consumption leads to the release of resources for investment and other uses.

Mr. Michael Shaw: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is important that of those savings a proper proportion


should continue to flow to building societies to assist the drive for greater home ownership?

Mr. Higgins: I agree with my hon. Friend. The question of balance is very important, because without that we are unlikely to increase the overall total, which must be the prime object of our policy.

British Capital (Repatriation)

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to encourage the repatriation of British capital.

Mr. Macmillan: I have no new proposals to make at the present time.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Does my hon. Friend recognise the tremendous advantages for the whole British people, not just for the City, of making London into a tax haven; and will he make a start by eliminating surtax?

Mr. Macmillan: With respect to my hon. Friend, that is going slightly wide of the repatriation of British investment overseas.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the Minister aware that the proposal would be well received by the police and the electricity workers earning £15 to £20 a week, who would love to get their surtax cut?

Mr. Macmillan: If my hon. Friend's supplementary question were a little wide of the point, the hon. Gentleman's is even wider.

Wines and Spirits (Duties)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the reduction of duties on wines and spirits.

Mr. Higgins: These duties will be included in the general review of indirect taxation before the Budget.

Mr. Cronin: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that recent studies have shown that the relationship between demand and price is such that if duties were reduced he would receive in gross a much larger sum? Will he bear in mind that, as a consequence of high duties, people of small means are suffering considerable hardship in this festive season?

Mr. Higgins: Clearly the elasticity of demand for these products is very important, but I do not necessarily agree with the hon. Gentleman's conclusions about what that elasticity may be.

Mr. John Hall: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the present rate of duty has discouraged the selling of table wines in the last year, and does not that prove what the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) has just said, that high duty discourages consumption?

Mr. Higgins: Clearly a duty of any kind must do something towards discouraging consumption. The question is, what is the exact ratio between change of duty and change of consumption? In that respect, in reply to my hon. Friend, it is necessary to have a run of figures over a time and to look at the matter dynamically rather than in the short run.

Joint-Stock Banks (Competition)

Mr. Hordern: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek powers to enable the clearing banks to compete for deposits by offering variable rates of interest.

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to increase competition between the joint-stock banks.

Mr. Tugendhat: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the change in interest rates that will follow the end of the cartel arrangements between the joint-stock banks.

Mr. Barber: I do not see the need for any additional powers, but we will continue to keep the question under review. I cannot estimate the effect on interest rates of any such change.

Mr. Hordern: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while it may not be necessary to seek any extra powers, the clearing banks themselves are unlikely to break their existing arrangements unless my right hon. Friend makes it clear that he would like them to do so? Does he think that the clearing banks should compete with each other in attracting deposits by offering different rates of interest?

Mr. Barber: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the abolition or retention of


the cartel is not merely a question of improving the efficiency of a particular industry. It also has important consequences for credit control which would need to be carefully examined before a decision was reached. This is why I said that we will keep the question under review.

Mr. Loveridge: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider setting up an official inquiry into restrictive practices in banking?

Mr. Barber: I cannot go further than I have done, which is to say that we will keep the question under review.

Mr. Tugendhat: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is something a little anomalous in the retention of the banks' cartel in view of our policies in various other important fields?

Mr. Barber: That may or may not be so. The simple fact, as I said, is that there are other matters which are relevant in addition to the efficiency of a particular industry and our general competition policy.

Mr. Sheldon: In accepting that a cartel is operating, why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer assume that the source of all wisdom rests with the Treasury? Why does not he submit this matter to the Monopolies Commission, or to the new body which is to take its place?

Mr. Barber: The answer to that question was set out at considerable length by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the Adjournment debate on 2nd December. He explained why that was not appropriate.

Mr. Proudfoot: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that if the market rate were charged by the joint stock banks for overdrafts, some of the big industries would be chased to the market and so leave more money in the joint stock banks for the small business men?

Mr. Barber: That might be one of the consequences. Another consequence might be that building societies would find that their funds were switched to the banks and they might have cause to increase their deposit rates, which

would in turn affect their mortgage rates. A variety of consequences could flow from this change, and the matter is under careful consideration.

Mr. Barnett: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the recent report of the Institute of Economic Affairs which seemed to indicate that the cost of the lack of competition may be as high as £90 million? As the Government regard competition as the solution to all our problems, why is the right hon. Gentleman not asking the Monopolies Commission to look at the question of the lack of competition amongst banks?

Mr. Barber: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me credit for saying that we will keep the question under review. This is a little different from the answer which his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) gave to his hon. Friend on 25th July, 1969. I appreciate the points involved in this, just as much as does the right hon. Gentleman, and, therefore, one has to take all these matters into consideration. As I have said, we will keep this under review.

Inflation

Mr. Douglas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will have further discussions with the Confederation of British Industry on the consequences of inflation.

Mr. Barber: Yes, Sir. Cost inflation will be discussed at the next meeting of the National Economic Development Council to be held on 6th January, at which representatives of the C.B.I. will be present.

Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman stress to the representatives of the Confederation of British Industry that we deplore the present practice of passing forward increasing unit costs to the consumer in the form of higher prices?

Mr. Barber: I have no doubt that the C.B.I. will take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Marten: To what extent does my right hon. Friend think that the present inflation, which is due in part to wage inflation, was due directly to the rise in prices as a result of devaluation by the Labour Party?

Mr. Barber: There is no doubt—it is generally admitted—that one very significant and important consequence of devaluation was to increase prices and to put up the cost of living. There is no doubt about that at all.

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry about inflation in nationalised industries; and what reply he sent.

Mr. Barber: None.

Mr. Hamilton: When the right hon. Gentleman gets representation—I assume that he did have representation by virtue of the fact that he has made many speeches, as has his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, along the lines that the nationalised industries must be whipping boys—will he be prepared to tell the C.B.I. that it must stand on its own two feet and that the Government will not intervene in what they deem to be freely negotiated wage settlements?

Mr. Barber: The reply which I send to the C.B.I. will be determined when I receive the representation which the hon. Gentleman assumes is coming. I have not heard from the C.B.I. yet.

Motorcars and Garages (Testing)

Mr. Ashton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of his receipts from motor taxation, he will make a grant to the Consumers' Association specifically for car testing and checks on garages.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The question of a grant to the Consumers Association is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I do not think that the existence of motor tax revenue would affect my right hon. Friend's decision.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware of the Which? inquiry into garages which showed that they were not only thieves but potential murderers? In view of the enormous revenue from motor taxation, whichever Minister is responsible, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is about time that the majority were investigated instead of the few which the resources of

the Consumers' Association make possible?

Mr. Macmillan: I think that the hon. Gentleman has slightly mistaken the point. The validity of a grant does not depend on the source of finance for it. We cannot start on this hypothecation of revenue, which distorts the Government's judgment in the spending of public funds.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend at once recognise that the representative garage organisations refuted absolutely the kind of disreputable language used by the hon. Gentleman and that the standards of maintenance for motor cars, while varying very widely, are on the whole creditable, not discreditable?

Mr. Macmillan: I must apologise to my hon. Friend for missing that point. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary was so wide of the point that I did not take it up in substance.

Whisky (Customs and Excise Regulations)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to bring the regulations operated by Customs and Excise authorities attached to whisky manufacturing establishments up to date; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Higgins: A revised system of revenue control was introduced three years ago following a full review in collaboration with the industry. If the hon. Member has a particular point in mind and cares to write to me, I will look into it.

Mr. Dempsey: Did the Minister consider the degree of rigidity which is sometimes enforced by Customs authorities? Does the hon. Gentleman realise, for example, that some of the manufacturers live in fear and trepidation that a sparrow may get into the whisky store one day and cost a new roof? Is it not worth examining such rigidity so as to lose this type of activity?

Mr. Higgins: My impression is that, as a result of the change made three years ago, the system is now more flexible. I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says and see whether there is any point which can be covered.

Unemployment (Fiscal and Monetary Measures)

Mr. Barnett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further fiscal and monetary measures he now intends to use to reduce the level of unemployment.

Mr. Barber: At the present time I have no statement to make on this matter.

Mr. Barnett: As the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have argued that the cause of much of our present trouble has been the growth of the money supply prior to June, will he present to the House the figures about it and what he has been doing since? Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that the effect of the policies which he is now pursuing would be to increase rather than to reduce unemployment?

Mr. Barber: No, I do not accept that. If the Opposition want to help to get down the level of unemployment, they might get into line with public opinion and speak out against excessive wage claims and support the Industrial Relations Bill—[interruption.] Yes. When they have shown what the Leader of the Opposition used to describe as "some guts", then I think they are entitled to speak for the unemployed.

Mrs. Renée Short: Should not the right hon. Gentleman be more concerned about the 160 million days per annum lost because of unemployment, than about harping on the Industrial Relations Bill, which does not help the situation at all?

Mr. Barber: Of course I am concerned. For a long time now—long before this Administration came to office—the level of unemployment has been too high. I have said this on a number of occasions. I very much hope that the long-term action which we are taking will bring down the present high rate of unemployment.

Mr. Grimond: While the right hon. Gentleman may be right in saying that the increase—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order to intervene between the Chair and an hon. Member who is speaking to the Chair.

Mr. Grimond: While the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt right in saying that the increase not only in wages but in salaries and remuneration generally is a serious matter for the economy, will he also bear in mind that there is now a growing shortage of capital and credit in some of the under-developed areas and that there may come a time when there must be some variation in the policy of the squeeze unless we are to face serious local unemployment in some of these areas?

Mr. Barber: I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman says. But the right hon. Gentleman obviously would not expect me to anticipate any such matters, even if I had them in mind.

Mr. Emery: While reducing the money supply will obviously have an unfavourable effect on industrial investment and the Government would not want to take action before Christmas, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give an undertaking to look most carefully at the amount of money supply in January, because it may be necessary then to take stringent action?

An Hon. Member: It will be too late then.

Mr. Barber: The question of money supply and domestic credit expansion are matters which any Government would keep under review, and I will do that.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Reverting to the right hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks in reply to my hon. Friend about inflationary wage claims, may I ask whether he still considers that he was right to advocate the payment of 30 per cent. to the doctors during the General Election?

Mr. Barber: I have no reason to resile from the view expressed by my right hon. Friends and myself regarding the doctors' claim. In the circumstances of that time—[Interruption.]—when his right hon. Friend who was then Secretary of State for Social Services was talking about the economy being in peril—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is not true."]—it was right to say what we did by way of qualification, and I have no reservation whatsoever.

Capital Allowances and Investment Grants

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the savings to be derived in 1971–72 by switching from investment grants to capital allowances, after allowing for the transitional arrangements.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In view of the transitional arrangements I do not expect significant Exchequer savings to arise before 1972–73.

Mr. Loveridge: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great satisfaction felt throughout the country that efficient companies in future—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—will receive more encouragement than the inefficient?

Mr. Macmillan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. For the benefit of new Members, it is not in order to read supplementary questions.

Mr. Macmillan: In so far as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite allowed me to hear my hon. Friend's supplementary question, may I thank him for it and agree with it.

Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Gentleman does not expect to make a substantial saving by that period, may I ask whether he will tell us why he is choosing to flout the view of the C.B.I. in Scotland that investment grants were substantially more desirable and helpful to Scottish industry than investment allowances?

Mr. Macmillan: My right hon. Friend, in the course of our debates, has made perfectly clear—the hon. Gentleman can refer to the White Paper—the reason for substituting allowances for investment grants. My right hon. Friend has also made perfectly clear the extra help which is being given to the regions, including Scotland.

Mr. McMaster: Will my hon. Friend note that the switch is particularly damaging to Northern Ireland, where there is a very high rate of unemployment and where many existing firms find it difficult to make a profit? Will he see whether something can be done to ameliorate the position there?

Mr. Macmillan: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the difficult position of Northern Ireland is always under our consideration.

Mr. Jay: Has the hon. Gentleman studied the Increasing evidence of a decline in industrial investment since the change was announced? In the face of that evidence, do the Government mean to press on with the change?

Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman should be very wary of drawing causal conclusions in that way. One thing that the change must do, taken in conjunction with the reductions in corporation tax and income tax, is to increase company liquidity in this first year and in the second year, to an extent that, as I explained in my Answer, we do not expect significant Exchequer savings to arise before 1972–73.

Overdue Tax Repayments

Mr. David James: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for the Inland Revenue to pay the same rate of interest on overdue tax repayments as it exacts for tax not paid.

Mr. Higgins: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. James: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Americans have operated such a system for many years, and that the proposal would represent obvious justice as between taxpayer and tax gatherer?

Mr. Higgins: It would be a mistake to draw direct conclusions on any of these matters between one country and another. There would be very grave difficulties in the suggestion which my hon. Friend has made. The Inland Revenue is under standing instructions to meet repayment claims as soon as possible. If my hon. Friend has any particular point in mind, I shall certainly look into it.

Hotel and Catering Industry

Mr. John Hannam: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount paid in selective employment tax by the hotel and catering industry during the year 1969–70 and the total grants paid for developments under the


Tourism Development Act during the same period.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: There are difficulties in making a worth-while estimate of the net cost for a year (like 1969–70) in which there is a tax change, but I estimate that the net cost of S.E.T. to the hotel and catering industry would be between £35 and £40 million in a full year at current rates. As regards the Tourism Development Act, the information is available in the Reports of the Tourist Boards.

Mr. Hannam: Does my hon. Friend agree that this industry, which is vital and likely to become the single largest industry by 1975, should be treated fiscally as an industry and should therefore receive selective employment tax refunds and depreciation allowances on new buildings?

Mr. Macmillan: Selective employment tax is discriminatory and anomalous as it is, and further selective relief in advance of abolition would make it worse. That is why we do not propose to tackle selective employment tax piecemeal.

Dental Health (Indirect Taxation)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) why toothbrushes do not attract purchase tax and toothpaste is taxed at 36⅔ per cent.; and, having regard to the condition of natural teeth of the young and the effect on National Health Service funds, whether he will now take steps, resulting from his review of indirect taxation, to exempt toothpaste from all taxation;
(2) why toothbrushes are free of purchase tax, confectionery, liqueur chocolates and soft-drinks are Axed at 22 per cent., and toothpaste a 36⅓ per cent.; and whether, in the interest of preventive dentistry, he will announce forthwith the results of his review of indirect taxation and reform all such fiscal deficiencies militating against dental health, from 1st January, 1971.

Mr. Higgins: I will keep the dental interest in mind during the current review of indirect taxation. This is not yet complete.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this tax accident, which

occurred many years ago, has cost us tens of millions of pounds over the years in increased dental decay and an advance in the National Health Service Vote, and that it would be far cheaper for taxpayers if he abolished the tax on toothpaste on 1st January next and saved a substantial sum of money on the National Health Service Vote?

Mr. Higgins: That would be a matter for the Finance Bill. As to the quantified aspect of the matter, I have no basis for such figures. My hon. Friend is well known for his crusade on purchase tax anomalies. I shall certainly bear in mind in the general review the point that he makes.

Mr. Bob Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the dental health of the nation will suffer very severely as a result of the recent announcement by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and that a more helpful Answer would have been worth while?

Mr. Higgins: I hope very much that the Answer was helpful. We are undertaking a review of the indirect taxation system, and I have given an assurance that this matter is among the aspects that we shall look into.

Charitable Donations (Tax Allowances)

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider making charitable donations by individuals allowable against their tax.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Baker: As Government policy is to stimulate the contribution which private agencies like charities can make to our national life, may I press my hon. Friend to view the suggestion very favourably, as it would considerably stimulate charitable efforts?

Mr. Macmillan: There are considerable difficulties in the face of my hon. Friend's suggestion, and there are other ways of achieving the same purposes which we all have in mind. I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion. I do not think that he would expect me to say more at this stage.

Mr. David James: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the merit of including surtax as a tax against which donations to charities can be charged? There are bodies like county naturalists' trusts, historic church trusts and so on which one could assist if such alleviation of tax existed.

Mr. Macmillan: That rather enlarges the question, but I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister when he intends to seek to establish a Scottish Assembly; and when he expects it to be functioning.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) on 10th November.—[Vol. 806, c. 128.]

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Prime Minister aware that that Answer conveyed nothing very much? Why is the right hon. Gentleman so tardy in bringing forward this proposal, which in any case had absolutely no effect on the electorate in Scotland at the General Election? What will the difference be between the proposed Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Grand Committee? Is it just a tarted-up version of the Scottish Grand Committee, with no extra powers?

The Prime Minister: The recommendation of paragraph 322 of the Scottish Constitutional Committee was that constitutional reform should follow the proposals for local government reform. We are adhering to that programme.

Mr. Grimond: Does the Prime Minister intend to introduce proposals for a Scottish Assembly before or after the Report of Lord Crowther? When does he expect that Report to be in his hands?

The Prime Minister: We have not been informed when that Report will be to hand. We are not committed to holding up the constitutional reform until after Lord Crowther's Committee reports, but we have always said that it will come after the reform of local government.

Mr. Maclennan: If the Prime Minister is not prepared to wait until Lord Crowther's Report is forthcoming, will he ask the Committee to accelerate a special report on Scotland to enable him to have the benefit of that important Royal Commission?

The Prime Minister: I could pass that message to Lord Crowther. I understand that the Commission does not wish to make interim reports on individual parts of the United Kingdom. If a situation arose in which it was desirable, I could certainly broach that with Lord Crowther.

EDINBURGH (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

Mr. Strang: asked the Prime Minister if he will undertake to pay an official visit to Edinburgh in 1971.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, on 27th March, 1971.

Mr. Strang: When the Prime Minister visits Edinburgh next March, will he take time to attend a meeting of the Edinburgh Area Council of the Scottish Old-Age Pensioners' Association? After his famous Leicester speech, when he said that price increases hit pensioners hardest, and when he promised to fight on the pensioners' side, will he explain why his Government have announced massive tax cuts for the rich but have stubbornly refused to give pensioners an increase to help them through the winter?

The Prime Minister: One of the first measures of this Government was to introduce pensions for the over-80s, which we had pledged. When I visit Scotland, I am quite prepared to discuss these matters with pensioners' representatives.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Prime Minister confirm that his over-80s pensions Act was such a fraud that the Government are already having to consider fresh legislation? Will he give an assurance that the ordinary pensioners will have their pensions increased soon?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had seen the letters I have received from those concerned, thanking us for introducing that Measure, he would understand the real position. Such a Measure was consistently rejected by his own side throughout the last Parliament.

DEPARTMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (MINISTERS)

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Prime Minister if he will reduce the number of Ministers in the Department for the Environment.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Davis: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the Secretary of State for the Environment has refused to give an undertaking that he will not take out of rent control properties with a rateable value of up to £250 in London and up to £100 elsewhere, that he has abdicated total responsibility for any thinking on rent legislation to the Francis Committee? In those circumstances, why have so many incompetent Ministers? Let us have at least one competent one.

The Prime Minister: It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

BANK OF ENGLAND PRINTING WORKS, DEBDEN

Mr. Douglas: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Debden in Essex.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Douglas: Would the right hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that he should have taken the opportunity to exonerate the workers at the Bank of England's printing works at Debden from charges of excessive over-production in the creation of notes? Would he also acknowledge or deny that, if the Government continue to rely excessively on monetary policy, we could well reach unemployment in the region of two million?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must hold a rather over-simplified view of monetary policy and monetary control. Bank notes and coins represent only 20 per cent. of the total money supply available.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that forays into Essex from north of the Border will be met with appropriate parliamentary retaliation? Is he further aware that my Debden constituents will be delighted to receive him,

as they are among his firmest supporters in resisting inflationary wage demands? When the First Lord of the Treasury decides to inspect the money supply at the Bank of England printing works, will he take with him the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), who so far has not been able to gain admittance?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even questions on county patriotism must be brief.

The Prime Minister: Nor, I suspect, has the hon. Member for East Stirling-shire (Mr. Douglas). I prefer to follow the traditions of the House and to accept invitations from those who represent their constituencies.

INFLATION

Mr. Barnett: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 21st November at Llandudno on the subject of inflation represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Barnett: If the national interest requires a reduction in the level of wage inflation, how does the Prime Minister reconcile his policy of non-intervention with the fact that the result may be a settlement which is not in the national interest?

The Prime Minister: The Government have defined their policy very clearly on conciliation and its relationship to industrial disputes. I should have thought that the announcement yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment dealt very clearly with that.

Mr. Moyle: What is the difference between a wages norm and the national interest?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman awaits the court of inquiry which is to be held, he may very well see the explanation.

Mr. Sandys: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people feel that he has already made a pretty good start in tackling the runaway inflation which he inherited from the previous Administration? Is he also aware that the smack of firm government is receiving general approval?

The Prime Minister: It is only a matter of regret that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who, in their own Administration, announced that they were there to fight inflation, have now given up the battle.

MINISTERS (TELEVISION AND RADIO APPEARANCES)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister what instructions he has given to Ministers on the acceptance of fees for television and radio appearances.

The Prime Minister: It remains the practice that Ministers do not accept such fees.

Mr. Hamilton: Does that Answer mean that since 18th June no Minister has received any fee when he was appearing as a Minister on television or radio? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the television and radio authorities that they should make sure that they get value for money, which will amount to pretty much the same thing?

The Prime Minister: This is rather a serious matter. To the best of my knowledge, no Minister has received any fee for appearing on radio or television since the present Government were formed. In that, we follow the practice of previous Administrations. If the hon. Gentleman has any example that he wishes to bring to my notice, I will gladly make inquiries into it. I have made inquiries throughout the Government, and the answer that I have received is that no Minister has received fees of this kind. In fact, I never even got a fee when I was Leader of the Opposition.

Sir J. Rodgers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a Mr. Cleaver of the B.B.C. is alleged to have said that, according to B.B.C. custom, people who appear in programmes like "Panorama", including Cabinet Ministers, have been paid fees? Can my right hon. Friend write to Lord Hill to get confirmation of who received these fees?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the statement which my hon. Friend reports. I am prepared to inquire into it myself, but in my own experience, I have never known of a case in which a

Minister of any party received a fee for going on B.B.C. television. That also applies to those in receipt of salaries here—namely, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Whips.

MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS

Mr. Sillars: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a Ministerial broadcast dealing with the whole range of Government policies, on the evening of 31st December.

Mr. Kinnock: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a Ministerial broadcast on 31st December.

Mr. Ashton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a Ministerial broadcast on 24th December.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) on 26th November.—[Vol. 807, c. 608.]

Mr. Sillars: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in anticipation of an affirmative reply, I was going to ask him to promise to introduce retrospective legislation to make his own election manifesto a legally binding agreement, so that the housewives could sue him for breach of promise?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member were ever able to support a Government who had carried through so many of their promises as we have, he could be proud.

Mr. Kinnock: Would not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision and take the opportunity provided by a television broadcast of explaining to old-age pensioners, homeless families—[Interruption.]—I am concerned, even if hon. Members opposite are not—and the low-paid what the term "national interest" means, in view of his continued refusal to do anything meaningful about inflation?

The Prime Minister: I think that the country will rapidly draw is own conclusion on the repeated insistence of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they have no concern whatever with the national interest.

Mr. Ashton: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is traditional for Ebenezer Scrooge to make an appearance on 24th December? Would it not be a good thing to produce the Ghosts of Christmas Present and Christmas Past, so that we can compare the two, and perhaps call on his Dickensian friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to play Mr. Beadle with regard to the Oliver Twist attitude he has expressed?

Mr. Mudd: Would not my right hon. Friend accept that his decision not to speak on 24th December is based on his religious observance of British holidays and that his ability to avoid 31st December is out of deference to not infringing a Scottish ritualistic habit?

Mr. English: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I thank him for his reply that he will not broadcast on 24th December, since it happens to be my birthday?

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNTY

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to discuss Great Britain's application to join the Common Market at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that our negotiations for entry into the European Communities will be discussed at the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference.

Mr. Marten: Since my right hon. Friend is a staunch believer in the Commonwealth, could he take a message to the Prime Ministers' conference from this House that under no circumstances would this House agree to pass any recom-

mendation to join the Common Market if it meant in any way harming the Commonwealth, to whom we owe such a great obligation?

The Prime Minister: The negotiating position on matters affecting Commonwealth countries has been stated from time to time both in the White Paper and by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but it would not be right for me to try to tell the Prime Ministers of Commonwealth countries what the House of Commons itself will do.

Mr. John Mendelson: When the right hon. Gentleman addresses and takes part in the discussions with the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers, will he make it clear that this new House of Commons has had no opportunity of reflecting the many letters and messages which hon. Members have received from people in Commonwealth parliamentary assemblies on the implications of the negotiations, and that therefore he has no mandate to say either way whether the House of Commons is prepared to approve the bartering away of Commonwealth interests which his Administration are attempting to undertake?

The Prime Minister: The Commonwealth Prime Ministers and their Parliaments follow these matters very closely. They know that the House of Commons has an opportunity of questioning the Minister responsible for the restrictions when he returns from Brussels on each occasion and they will also know of the undertaking that there will be a debate when the House resumes after Christmas. They also know that the final decision is made only when the complete negotiations can be placed before the House of Commons.

HARE COURSING (ABOLITION) BILL (TELLERS)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call on the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), I have a rather important Ruling to make. I want to call the attention of the House to an incident that took place last Tuesday, 8th December, on the introduction of the Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill under the Ten Minute Rule procedure.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) were appointed tellers for the Noes on the Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill." The Question was agreed to, but immediately after telling against the Bill their names were included in the list of Members ordered to prepare and bring in the Bill. For Members whose names are to be announced as supporters of a Bill to vote or tell against the introduction of the Bill violates, in my opinion, the well-established principle of this House that a Member's vote must agree with his voice. I must therefore give directions that the hon. Members' names be removed from the list of Members ordered to prepare and bring in the Bill and that the Journal be corrected accordingly.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order. If in the incident that took place on 8th December I offended against you or the practices of this House, Mr. Speaker, by the strategy I devised, I apologise to you and to the House. In an attempt to bring in the Bill, to get adequate discussion, to get opponents of the Bill to stand up and be counted, rather than waste the time allotted to other Private Members' Bills, we adopted a strategy of this sort. Therefore, responsibility for what was done was mine, at my suggestion. I apologise now to the House and to you that it was necessary. I should say that I believe a person's voice should follow the vote, but so should the vote follow the voice.

Mr. Speaker: The House will accept the hon. Gentleman's apology.

Mr. William Price: Further to that point of order. I am grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I did not know it was coming and I had not therefore come armed with information which I should like to put before you at the

earliest opportunity. Some months ago on a Friday in this House on the Conservation of Seals Bill, when the people involved did precisely the same sort of thing that I did last week—for which I do not apologise—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Price: With respect, I was not asked to apologise. I am grateful for your Ruling because it allows my right hon. and hon. Friends, who thought I had finally gone out of my head in supporting hon. Members opposite, to know what the facts really were. I wish to seek an interview with you at the earliest opportunity to bring to your notice precisely what happened on that Friday some months ago on which we have not subsequently had a Ruling.

Mr. Speaker: If such a thing did happen such a Ruling ought to have been given. I was not aware of it.

Mr. Dalyell: Mr. Dalyell rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have an important debate ahead.

Mr. Dalyell: On the subject of the Ten Minute Rule Bill procedure, does it not bring the House of Commons into far greater disrepute when on a Friday afternoon people shout "Object" to Measures about which they have not the remotest idea?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Ashton rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have an important day's debate ahead.

Mr. Ashton: While thanking you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as one of the tellers, could I ask you what the situation would be if two tellers find themselves convinced by the size of the majority in the vote and take it upon themselves to suport a Measure?

Mr. Speaker: That is the most ingenious point of order I have heard for some time, but it does not correspond with the history of the case. Sir Gerald Nabarro—[Interruption.] Order. The House recently decided by a large majority that the Ten Minute Rule procedure should take place at this stage of the day's debate. It must listen to the hon. Gentleman.

TOBACCO AND SNUFF (HEALTH HAZARDS)

Sir G. Nabarro: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the labelling of packets containing, and to amend the law relating to the advertisement of, manufactured tobacco products, including snuff; to limit the content of tar, nicotine and other harmful substances in manufactured tobacco products, including snuff, when offered for sale; and for purposes connected therewith.
An earlier Bill in the last Session called the Cigarettes (Health Hazards) Bill failed through lack of Parliamentary time. In the Sessions before that a Bill moved by the then hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne Dr. John Dun-woody also failed through lack of Parliamentary time. The Bill proposed today is both a stronger and much wider Bill than either of its predecessors having regard to the climate of contemporary opinion both in Britain and overseas.
The fact is that the great majority of countries of the Western world and indeed many major countries elsewhere, including Russia and Japan, are moving towards restrictive legislation in the matter of tobacco. In this country we have so far carried out only one relatively minor step. That was the banning of advertising for a single tobacco product, cigarettes, on a single medium, namely television.
I would propose, if leave is given to bring in this Bill, three important restrictive measures with regard to the consumption of tobacco, notably cigarettes and including snuff. Those three measures are, first, that a bold, graphic and lurid health warning be printed on the exterior of all containers and packets of cigarettes and tobacco products. Snuff is included for a single, logical reason, namely, that snuff is powdered tobacco and whereas there may not be identical and powerful reasons for supposing that snuff is damaging to health in the same fashion as the inhalation of tobacco smoke, snuff is nevertheless a tobacco product and should be included in the Bill. If the bulk of and majority of informed opinion outside this House and within it decided specifically to exclude snuff at a future stage of the Bill, I would, of course, submit.
The second major feature of the Measure proposed is a critically important one. It is to print on the exterior of

all containers for tobacco and tobacco products, notably cigarettes, the poison content of the manufactured tobacco itself, notably such poisons as tar and nicotine. The third provision which may be introduced into the Bill in Committee if the Government support the Measure, but not otherwise, is a total ban on all advertising by all media of all tobacco products. This is now recommended in many countries, in their respective national legislatures, and is believed to be contained, according to advance statements, in the forthcoming Second Report and Recommendations of the Royal College of Physicians on Tobacco. It is generally believed to be an acceptable measure for containing and eventually restricting the consumption of tobacco, especially in the form of cigarettes.
My reason for believing that this Measure is so important in our contemporary society is the evil influence of tobacco consumption, notably cigarettes, upon human health. There cannot be any reasonable doubt today that there is a direct link between the consumption of tobacco and such dread diseases as cancer of the lung, carcinomas of many kinds and, whether afflicting males or females, coronary and other heart diseases and bronchial ailments of every description. The fact is that the bulk of medical opinion in Britain today confirms that about 100,000 men and women are losing their lives annually, directly or indirectly, as a result of tobacco consumption in all its forms.
I put to the House this afternoon a single feature of that astonishing figure of 100,000 deaths annually on this account. Nobody has yet been able to quantify or put a monetary figure on the cost to the National Health Service of one death out of the 100,000 deaths arising from tobacco consumption, but I aver, with a great deal of support outside the House, notably medical and surgical, that probably the cost of treatment of a lung cancer case by doctors and nurses, and hospitalisation before death, probably aggregates £1,000 per case.
I hear an hon. Member say "At least", and I, too, believe that that figure is an under-estimate, but I put it this afternoon at £1,000 per death for all these facilities. But if that is a true estimate then 100,000 deaths a year would account for an expenditure under the


National Health Service of £100 million, or approximately 5 per cent. of the total National Health Service Vote.
I say that no Government should stand on the sidelines and observe this chronic waste of funds and medical resources as well as the disastrous waste of human life without taking steps to limit it. Of course, in a free society it is impossible to require by Statute that men and women will not smoke. We cannot enact on such a matter. We can only try to persuade; I believe by the general means I have described.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer should listen carefully to these words—I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend is nodding assent. The fact is that this year he collects £1,160 million in Tobacco Duty. Out of that £1,160 million, 87½ per cent., or £1,045 million, is on account of Tobacco Duty derived from cigarettes. So seven-eighths of the duty conies from cigarettes and one-eighth from other forms of tobacco products.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has a mighty vested interest: it is valid to say that if tobacco consumption reduces, as it would under the proposed Bill, a Chancellor of the Exchequer will lose revenue, but I appeal to my right hon. Friend that human health in Britain is vastly more important to our community, and to all human progress besides, than his immediate and current Revenue in the year I have quoted, vast sums of money though that represents.
For all these reasons, I believe that Britain should lead, not follow, in this context, restrictive legislation on consumption of tobacco and cigarettes. The Bill is supported by eleven other Members representing the maximum permitted number of 12 sponsors for a Bill. Of those, seven are Tory Members, four are Labour Members and one is a Liberal Member. Of the 12 Members, eight are laymen and four are medical doctors. It is therefore an all-party Measure powerfully supported by both medical and lay Members.

Mr. Lipton: I oppose the Motion. First, I must declare an interest. I am an honorary member of the Society of Snuff Grinders, Blenders and Purveyors, and I have a very beautifully illuminated testimonial to that effect.
Second, I submit that it is an abuse of process, if not highly irregular and unusual, for an hon. Member introducing a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule procedure to announce before the Bill is presented that he will abandon one important provision. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has already indicated that he is now prepared to exclude snuff from the provisions of the Bill. I wonder whether he has secured the consent of the eleven hon. Members who support him to this important alteration.
It is quite clear that the hon. Member has not taken the trouble to acquaint himself with the facts, which are, briefly, as follows. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that snuff-taking is harmful. As a matter of fact, snuff-takers are a happy breed of men and women, and if the hon. Member were to take the trouble to examine the criminal statistics he would find that only a minute proportion of the country's criminal population takes snuff.
Probably one of the country's greatest authorities on the subject is Professor D. F. N. Harrison, Doctor of Medicine. Master of Surgery, and a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons. He published an article,
Snuff: its use and abuse
in the British Medical Journal of 26th December, 1964. I do not know whether the hon. Member took the trouble to read that article before he compiled his Bill. Professor Harrison, who is the head of the Institute of Larynology and Otology, University of London, has not altered any of the views he then expressed. Snuff apparently does not reach the lungs. There is no relation between the taking of snuff and lung cancer.
Though small, the snuff industry is very old and provides consistent employment, without strikes, for a number of working people throughout their lives. Nearly 30 per cent. of the snuff manufactured in this country is exported, and so makes a useful contribution to our export trade. It has no tar content—this is only produced on burning.
Because, quite obviously, the hon. Member has not given sufficient thought to what he is doing in introducing his Bill, and because when the Bill is finally


printed, if ever it is printed, it will be quite different from what it was originally intended to be, I wish to register my opposition. Nevertheless, in order not to waste the time of the House I shall not press my opposition to a Division, on the assumption, the undertaking, that the hon. Member will exclude all reference to snuff when the Bill is dealt with, if ever it is dealt with, in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir G. Nabarro, Mr. David Steel, Sir M. Stoddart-Scott, Mr. Cronin, Dr. Stuttaford, Mr. Bishop, Mr. St. John-Stevas, Mr. Parker, Dr. Vaughan, Mr. Roy Hughes, Mr. Cooper and Mr. Jessel.

TOBACCO AND SNUFF (HEALTH HAZARDS)

Bill to regulate the labelling of packets containing, and to amend the law relating to the advertisement of, manufactured tobacco products, including snuff; to limit the content of tar, nicotine and other harmful substances in manufactured tobacco products, including snuff, when offered for sale; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon 12th February and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14th December], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Walter Johnson: On a point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith) said this about the closed shop:
The brutality of how it works was shown vividly in the case of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association at the British Railway depot in Derby. There, a man who refused to join a union, Mr. Hartington, was thrown out of his job …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 1025.]
Mr. Hartington was not thrown out of his job. He is still working for British Railways and his case is being considered by management, by trade unions, and by Mr. Hartington himself. The hon. Member for Belper ought to correct that statement at the earliest opportunity.
In addition, during the course of his speech the hon. Gentleman referred to an appeals body as being "a kangaroo court". In effect, this appeals body consists of trade unions and management alike and all appeals are held fairly. I think that this statement, too, should be corrected by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Speaker: With respect, these are two points that might be raised in debate. They are debating points.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that there is a very important point for the House here. As I understand it, the reason my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson) could not raise this matter in the normal way during the debate yesterday was that these allegations were made in the course of a maiden speech which, by the convention of the House, may not be interrupted.
I suggest that it is time that we considered that intervention, because it is becoming a little intolerable to have to sit back and listen to mis-statements which cannot be corrected at the time.
You said that it can be raised in the course of the debate, but you know perfectly well, Mr. Speaker, with due respect,


that this depends on who is called during the debate. Nobody can have a guarantee. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South, as a representative of the T.S.S.A. in the House, has a special standing in this matter. [Interruption.] Yes, his own union. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well that as a member of the T.S.S.A. and as a former official of the T.S.S.A. of standing my hon. Friend has a special feeling about this matter. He was inhibited from raising the point yesterday because it was a maiden speech. Can we have your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to how the House can be protected against mis-statements of this kind in maiden speeches?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Lady is on a serious point. The final answer to what she has said is that the hon. Member for Derby, South has corrected, under the guise of a point of order, what he regarded as a mis-statement made yesterday. It was made in debate yesterday. The tradition of maiden speeches is that they should be non-controversial. That has gone, but it places the House in great difficulties if very controversial speeches are made which contain statements which an hon. Gentleman wishes to correct and cannot in the nature of things. It is a rather serious matter.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not also the tradition and convention of the House that if an hon. Member is to be criticised by another hon. Member he is given notice of it so that he can be here to defend himself?

Mr. Speaker: This ought to be done.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to take up your time or that of the House, but in fairness to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson) and in fairness to the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), because I am sure that it was not her wish, may I point out that she said that the hon. Member for Derby, South was the representative of the T.S.S.A. in the House?
Surely it is a fact that, although many of us may quite properly belong to various organisations which may have a viewpoint of some value to put forward

in the House, we are only here as the representatives of our constituents. I hope that the other sort of representation will never exist in the House, and I am sure that the right hon. Lady would not wish it to go unchallenged on the record.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady both know that Members of Parliament are representatives of those who send them to Parliament.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are on the second day of an important debate. At least 30 hon. Members sat all day yesterday trying to get in. The more time we spend before we get on to the debate the fewer hon. Members will be called.

Captain Walter Elliot: Further to that point of order. I will not take more than a moment, Mr. Speaker. It is well recognised that a maiden speech should be uncontroversial, which amounts to an understanding that the speaker should not be interrupted. Surely it is perfectly in order, however, for a speaker called subsequently from the other side to take up the points which have been made in a maiden speech.

Mr. Speaker: I should have thought that that was perfectly in order.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you are aware that at least ten maiden speeches have been made in the debate on the Consultative Document and in yesterday's debate. Are you aware that when we debated the rate support grant last Thursday, which was an ideal occasion for maiden speeches to be made, not one maiden speech was made? There were no fewer than four consecutive speeches from this side of the Chamber. As ideal opportunities are allowed to go begging, may I suggest that when controversial issues such as the Bill come up maiden speakers should be asked to reserve their debuts for another day?

Mr. Speaker: Every hon. Member in the House eagerly waited once to make his maiden speech. We have a record number of new Members in the House. It is true that they are inclined to choose important debates for the occasion of their maiden speeches. I think that that, too,


is natural and not new to this group of maiden speakers. I hope that we can get on.

Question again proposed.

3.57 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I am glad to intervene in this debate, both because of the importance of the Bill and also because at one time, as the House knows, I held the high office of Minister of Labour. I went through the same sorts of traumatic experience as others who have held that office have recounted from time to time, including the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) yesterday.
Nevertheless, I look back on it with pleasure, because it was that period of my political life when I made fewest enemies—some would say for good reasons; some would say for bad. In any case, it enabled me to establish a working relationship with trade unionists and with employers which I valued and which I have since been able to maintain.
Mr. Speaker, I am mindful of your exhortation about the number of hon. Gentlemen who will, quite naturally, wish to take part in the debate. I noticed that yesterday more than half the time available was taken up by Front Bench speakers. Therefore, with your permission, Sir, and that of the House I should like to make my intervention as brief as possible. In it I wish to address myself to the main principles of the Bill, which is surely the purpose under our procedure of a Second Reading debate. The House will have the opportunity of eliciting detailed information and of debating the drafting during the Committee stage on the Floor of the House. I think that most right hon. and hon. Gentlemen—I think I detected this in the attitude of many on the Opposition Front Bench yesterday afternoon—will feel that there are delicate and important issues in the Bill and that often very fine matters of judgment are required in deciding which is the best way of achieving the purpose of the main objective for the Bill.
What I suggest that we need to do in this debate is to establish clearly some of the issues with which we are dealing and the genuine differences between the two sides of the House.
I approach this matter from the point of view that in the last 25 years, or just over 25 years, since the last years of the war, we have seen a process of intensive change and reform in almost every aspect of our national life. Whether it is in social services, education or housing, whether it is in the economy, in company law, in the field of monopoly legislation, employers' restrictive practices, or in our own political organisations and institutions, we have witnessed a continuing process of investigation followed by modernisation. It was begun in the last years of the wartime Coalition. It was continued under the Attlee Administration and by all Governments since. And yet the one major field in which there has been no such reform is that of industrial relations. But I suggest that no one today, whether inside or outside the employers' organisations and the trade unions, can deny that reform is urgently needed, least of all the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I have here a mass of quotations which I could use to substantiate that, but I have no desire to go into the matter in detail today. Suffice it to say that the right hon. Gentleman staked the future of himself and his party on reform and he lost. No overseas observer does other than express astonishment that since the war it is this field which has escaped the general process in Britain of examination and reform. It is an extraordinary exception and, because of the implications for the Bill, I want to examine for a moment the reasons for it.
I think that there are three reasons. The first is the belief, which was held for a long time, that those concerned with industrial relations, employers and unions, helped by bodies which study these matters both inside and outside universities, would bring about such a reform themselves. Ten years ago I shared that view and openly declared it. At the Ministry of Labour I embarked on a course of trying to encourage those concerned to bring about this reform. But today no one believes that this process is possible, least of all perhaps the moderate, forward-looking employers and trade union leaders who want to see it brought about. The ten years which have intervened have, for some, certainly myself, been years of disillusion which have shown that it is a futile hope to


expect that those concerned will be able to deal with the problems which undeniably exist.
The second reason is that at the outset there was a prevailing feeling that this was an area in which the rôle of the law was almost negligible and in which there was very little room for improving the situation by new and better legislation. [Interruption.]

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Listen to the speech.

The Prime Minister: I have given up expected that members of the Opposition Front Bench will listen to other people's speeches.
There was the feeling that industrial relations were human relations. This doctrine was held widely at that time, and the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, having launched an all-out attack on every aspect of the Bill, finished her speech yesterday by summing up her view as meaning "What we need is better psychology".
When I was Minister of Labour 11 years ago, this was undeniably the prevailing view. My judgment then was that it was right to continue with that traditional policy and not attempt a modernisation of the law. The Leader of the Opposition has from time to time enjoyed himself teasing me by saying that I flatly refused all pressure to set up a Royal Commission in 1959, citing a famous Motion on the Order Paper. I have a photostat copy of the Motion here. What he never revealed was that that famous Motion was signed by precisely two Members. That illustrated the extent of the pressure at that time for any sort of inquiry or any change in legislation.
I can well understand the position of those who argued that case in the 1950s and early 1960s. What I cannot understand is the position of those like the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn who still argue that case today. There has been a deterioration in the standard of industrial relations so marked and so damaging as, in my view, to undermine the whole basis of that traditional argument.
There are still those who argue that the law should not be brought into industrial relations. [HON. MEMBERS: " Hear,

hear."] I understand that point of view which is held in all sincerity. In the thought which I have given to this matter since those days, I have come to realise that this is not the issue. The law is already in industrial relations. It receives little publicity in many of its aspects, but it is there and it is sometimes effectively used. There are very recent cases in which unions have sued employers quite justifiably and successfully.
The unions have never hesitated to use such rights as they have when they thought it appropriate to do so. There are far more injunctions against unions today than are recognised publicly or in this House. Those injunctions are, almost without exception, observed by the unions because they are law-respecting bodies when the law is brought into action. [An HON. MEMBER: "How many injunctions have there been?"] In 1969 there were about 10 injunctions against unions. None of them received publicity, and they were observed.
Human behaviour in industrial relations is based on the existing law, much of which has remained unchanged for between three-quarters of a century and a century. There is no question, I believe, that human behaviour in industrial relations is conditioned, governed and based upon the existing law. Very well, then. It is not a question of keeping the law out of industrial relations. There are some who object to bringing the law up-to-date in accordance with the concepts of a modern industrialised society. In my view, a modern law will be respected, just as an out-of-date law can be evaded or exploited to the detriment of the community.
We can argue about and discuss the proposed law in Committee, but one of the things which I regretted about the speech of the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn yesterday was her attempt to undermine the instrument of the law, namely, the courts proposed to be set up by the Bill, before it has even been established. She described the proposed courts as "Government dominated". I hope not to hear that phrase about a British court of justice mentioned in the House again. The proposed courts are to be established on the same basis and same principle as the restrictive practices courts for dealing with the restrictive practices of employers or


with resale price maintenance—judges, plus those with knowledge of the relevant conditions.
I do not recall any criticism of this arrangement when it was a question of setting up courts to deal with employers and their restrictive practices and resale price maintenance. Nobody then argued that those were "Government dominated" courts. Nor do I believe that a British court will ever be dominated by any Government of any party.
The third reason for the lack of action in this field is the strength of the interests opposed to change and the entrenched nature of the privileges which must be called into question in any serious attempt at modernising industrial relations. We saw vividly these interests at work in the defence of these privileges in the closing years of the last Administration, and they triumphed. I do not wish to go over that matter again, except to say that the price paid by this country has been very high and is now recognised more and more clearly. It was higher than any believed possible at the time. Perhaps many of us looked at it then as a political matter. It has since proved to be a matter of industrial relations of the highest importance: nearly half as many strikes again since that time as before, nearly twice as many days lost, and wage settlements directly afterwards at a wildly inflationary level by the criteria set out by the last Administration. The return to any sort of normal healthy situation is bound to be an anxious and painful process.
Yesterday the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn made a negative speech. It was more than that: it was an intemperate speech. To many of us it was, I think, a depressing speech. When she was in office she attempted reform. It was through no fault of her own that she was not able to bring it about. In the view of many of us, the right hon. Lady—and I said this to the House at the time—showed remarkable courage. It is, therefore, rather sad that, although we criticised her for her approach over the cooling-off period, when she suggested that responsibility should lie with Ministers rather than with the courts and in one or two other cases, she should condemn root and branch a Bill which is trying to do many of the things she attempted and which

contains many of the provisions which she herself wanted, and I believe in her hearts of hearts still wants, she does less than justice to herself in the attitude she has taken.
There comes a time when the country as a whole realises that the case for reform is proved beyond doubt. And when that stage is reached, the arguments of the diehards and those who oppose no longer carry weight. That is the position which we have reached in this country today. To many it must be ironic that the Labour Party, which was founded to accelerate the pace of change in this country, and which has a notable record in many spheres in so doing, should now base so much of its political activity on resistance to change where it is obviously needed, and where the Labour Party itself has acknowledged that need.
This Bill is a recognition, which is perhaps long overdue, of the major place occupied today by trades unions and employers' organisations in the economic and social life of the nation. As this Measure recognises, the rights and responsibilities of employers' associations and unions are a matter for the community, and the community are responsible for their ordering through Parliament, just as with other institutions throughout the course of history. I still fail to understand why those who are so concerned, quite justifiably, about individual rights and about democratic procedures can be slow to recognise and indeed applaud the fact that those will henceforth be ensured in the clearest possible way under the law of the land. Recent events have shown—

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North) rose—

The Prime Minister: No, I cannot give way. Recent events have shown beyond any doubt that the country, if not the Opposition, is well aware of this need for this comprehensive reform. Too often the attempt to resolve these differences purely by co-operation based on the existing state of affairs has failed. People are sick and tired of the consequences of this failure. What we need to do now is to produce a legislative framework for industrial relations which will meet contemporary needs instead of the needs of 75 or 100 years ago. This is necessary not only for the health of our society but


also as an essential part of a long-term economic strategy.
Both sides of the House recognise that Governments have tried to establish a pattern of steady and sustainable economic growth by various means during the last 25 years. Too often their efforts have been frustrated by the requirements of short-term economic management. We are determined that this should not happen again.
Successive Governments have been forced by an adverse balance of payments to resort to deflationary measures. Having achieved that deflation, they have then found it necessary to stimulate the economy, to reverse a rise in unemployment, and to try to make use of what has become spare industrial capacity. We are all familiar with this story. Then there is excessive pressure on demand and more trouble with balance of payments. The round starts again, but the underlying factors have not changed during the past 25 years.
In this process the competitive pressures inherent in the existing system of collective bargaining and the consequences of industrial disputes, as of other forms of industrial disruption, have pushed up money incomes beyond what both sides of the House recognise to be possible in a productive economy. Sometimes the rise has been faster, sometimes slower, but nobody can deny what has been happening over all this period.
This, then, is the underying problem. Even when the present rate of growth of incomes and prices has been moderated, the problem will still be with us. It is possible for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that this Bill will not produce an immediate answer to this problem. But there is no doubt whatever that it is a vital element in the longer-term strategy for dealing with it. It has now become clear to the country that such a strategy is necessary for our industrial health and for an expanding economy.
That strategy is aimed at establishing a framework which will enable this process to come about, but it has many other strands which I have constantly tried to emphasise, and I do not wish to go into them in detail this afternoon. These are the strands of control of public expenditure which have been constantly

emphasised by the Labour Administration, the reform of the tax system, improved management and industrial training and the social policies of both Governments. If these are to be completed, one must add the reform of industrial relations. One must also take into account what it would do to help responsible management and responsible trades union leadership, and to provide the opportunity of securing genuine and lasting improvement in pay and conditions.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) rose—

The Prime Minister: No, I will not give way. How often have we heard that those who should be supported in industrial relations are those who are forward-looking and who wish to obtain a genuine improvement in their standard of living through improvements in earnings which will equal productivity. This is the problem that this Bill seeks to answer on both sides of industry. It cannot by itself bring results. It must be accompanied by the rest of the economic policy I have been describing, but it is essential and will contribute to the changing attitudes which everybody recognises is necessary.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday, in summing up the purposes of the Bill, said that it sought to bring order, stability and confidence to the system of free collective bargaining. This would happen because the rules and procedures laid down in the Bill will be clear and firm. There will, of course, be the benefits of adhering to the rules. If contracts are made, I believe that in a law-respecting society the great majority of them will be kept, and that once disputes arise they can be resolved in an ordinary way.
The people of this country are asking more and more that we should abandon the old methods in which every Minister of Labour has taken part and should have a means under the law for orderly resolution of industrial problems. It is this change in climate that British industry and the whole economy desperately needs today.
The rules and procedures will undoubtedly secure growing support from the majority of employers and trade unionists as they are seen to work to their


advantage. It will exert a growing influence for good in industrial relations and in the way in which employers and unions deal with one another. No longer will management and union leaders in some industries need to devote so much of their working time to wearing each other down in a senseless war of attrition.

Mr. Skinner: Name them!

The Prime Minister: We have heard constant emphasis on the number of strikes, and this undoubtedly is an important element in our economy and in our production. It takes no account whatever of what those of us who meet the employers and leading trades unions know, and that is the burden it places upon them individually in handling these problems constantly and in knowing all the time that the next problem cannot be far away. No longer will it be necessary to go on strike over a man's dismissal. Is not that an advantage? An orderly method—[Interruption.] I am sorry if there are some who do not wish to see these things resolved in an orderly way. What the Bill does is to make—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate with a running commentary.

The Prime Minister: It will be unnecessary to strike over the question of deciding who belongs to whose union or whether an employer should recognise a particular union, again, because an orderly procedure is laid down.

Mr. Skinner: Mr. Skinner rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way the hon. Gentleman must sit down.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has not distinguished himself in his interventions so far.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: The Prime Minister cannot get up on his hind legs in the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must warn the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) that he must contain himself.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order. I just heard the Prime Minister remark, after I had attempted to get him to give way to an intervention of mine, that I

had not distinguished myself in my interventions so far. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, to encourage the Prime Minister to explain precisely what he means by that?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for me to encourage the Prime Minister. That is a point of argument, not a point of order.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point of order. By common consent, this is an important debate and most of us on both sides want to hear the right hon. Gentleman. I suggest that my hon. Friends do not press this point any further. On consideration, the right hon. Gentleman might regret that he made his last remark, but whether or not he does, this is an important debate in which it is important that the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. Gentlemen should be heard.

The Prime Minister: I was developing the thesis that such strikes will be unnecessary because an alternative and orderly means will be laid down. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may well have views as to whether they are the right means of doing it in an orderly fashion. That is a matter for open and frank discussion in Committee. It is not a reason for repudiating an orderly means of dealing with these matters under the law. The House will take the view that a principle of the Bill is that it is the force of argument and not the argument of force that must be decisive in these matters.
As a result, both managements and unions, instead of being constantly harassed by unnecessary disputes, can plan ahead to improve productivity and create better working conditions for everyone in their industry. When that happens, the employer will have a better chance of maintaining his schedule and his delivery dates—

Mr. Ashton: And his profits.

The Prime Minister: Exactly. And out of his profits he will be prepared to pay more in wages as the product of assured industrial peace. It will be to the advantage of both sides. If hon. Members opposite have not yet realised that aspect of industrial life, they are way behind most of the people in their own trade unions.
The employer will undoubtedly be prepared to pay more with an enforceable agreement which gives him that period of time in which to plan ahead and achieve results. That is the whole basis of advantage in the way in which the Bill is constructed. What is more, the nation will better be able to afford higher real wages, because they will be soundly based on productive efficiency.
No one has ever denied that there will be hard bargaining before contracts are signed, but the trade unions as well as the employers will be the better prepared for it. They may need to improve their organisations. They will probably decide to pay their leaders and their staff salaries which will match their new responsibilities. This, too, has been urgently needed, as has been recognised by every foreign observer of the industrial relations scene in this country. Those of us who have talked to leading trade unionists in other countries, as I did when I was Minister of Labour and have done many times since, have so often wished that we could have here by voluntary arrangements many of the advantages which they have overseas.
Is it too much to expect that in this country we, too, could have a statistical bureau, supported by both employers and trade unions, so that this element was automatically taken out of any discussion or negotiation, because it would be paid for and supported by both sides, and both sides would accept its conclusion? To any ordinary person, it is elementary that we should have such a system. It exists in other countries, but here we have never got anywhere near it.
I do not think that when the Bill becomes law the trade unions will shirk the responsibilities of which I have spoken. Certainly, under the Bill these new responsibilities will have solid advantages for their members. Their bargaining rights will be extended, and their membership can therefore increase. This will depend on the trade unions themselves and what they achieve.
As the provisions of the Bill take effect, we shall see better-organised unions. It may be that the number of individual unions will decrease, because they will see it to be to their advantage to bring that about to get the staff they want and to pay better salaries. The unions will

have the rights and incentives to membership offered under the Bill.
In the end, this will produce what everybody has been urging upon the Governments for many years, which is to introduce legislation to have stronger and more successful union leadership. That is a view which I very much support. They will be in a position to negotiate a better and fairer deal for their members in exchange for genuine productivity and for the assurance of industrial peace. Those are the advantages of the Bill, which I believe to be very great indeed.
If the procedures are not followed, and enforceable collective agreements are broken despite the union's effort, then provided the union uses its best endeavours to persuade its members to return to work, neither the union nor the official union leaders will be liable to compensation awards. The official union leadership, therefore, will be in a much stronger position to deal with troublemakers. Again, it is something for which moderate union leadership has been asking.

Hon. Members: Who? Name them.

The Prime Minister: Employers themselves will be able to—[Interruption.]

Mr. James Sillars: Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Members for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) and Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must contain themselves.

Mr. Skinner: I have not said anything lately.

The Prime Minister: The employers will be in a position to take disciplinary or legal action against unofficial strike leaders.

Mr. James Tinn: On a point of order. As one who has listened very carefully to the Prime Minister, and who might have liked to put one or two points to him, may I suggest that it would be easier for my hon. Friends to contain themselves if he would kindly consent to give way once or twice?

The Prime Minister: I am trying to meet the wish of the House that as many hon. Members as possible should be able to take part in the debate. I just wish


to say that when I am asked to name particular individual union leaders, I do not wish to do so—[Interruption.]—I do not intend to indulge in personalities about trade union leaders.

Mr. John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman said just now that the provisions in this legislation have been asked for by responsible prominent trade union leaders. How does he explain that these proposals have met with the unanimous opposition of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress? Where are these leaders to be found if they are not there, because the General Council is made up of the general secretaries and presidents of the unions? How can the right hon. Gentleman be so barefaced as to imagine that we will believe such nonsense?

The Prime Minister: I said that moderate trade union leaders have long been asking for their own position to be strengthened. There is no doubt about that, and those of us who have talked and dealt with them know that—[Interruption.] Indeed, so do the right hon. Gentlemen on the front bench opposite. It was asked for many times during the last eight days, when these matters have been publicly discussed.
If the unions themselves disregard enforceable agreements or engage in unfair practices unprotected by the law, they will be liable. There are those who object to this provision. In my view, in any society based on the rule of law, this must be so. It is essential that it is accepted. But I do not believe for one moment that the unions are likely to put themselves in breach of the law. They will not choose to act in such a way as to risk their funds, the subscriptions of their members, in ill-judged and unlawful actions. I am sure that their members would not wish them to do so and will themselves exert pressure to prevent it happening.

Mr. Russell Kerr: You hope.

The Prime Minister: But managers and management will find that they have new responsibilities which they must accept if the new climate in industrial relations is to be created. They must take the initiative to secure improved industrial relations in their own businesses and factories. This

responsibility is clearly upon them. They will have to negotiate collective agreements including dispute procedures, which will be effective. These are agreements by which management must abide just as much as the unions and union members. Therefore, the responsibilities are placed on both sides and are fair and equal. The Bill provides the legal framework which will enable both management and trade unions to advance in authority and in efficiency.
There is one point which the Leader of the Opposition may wish to deal with later when he winds up, as I understand he intends to do. It was left to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to say, last night, that if his party is returned to power, at some future date, it will repeal the whole of the Bill. It is a little unusual to allow such an important announcement to be made by one so newly on the Opposition Front Bench. Nevertheless, it is a vital and important announcement about which all those concerned with industrial relations, employers and trade unions, should know. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will live to regret the day that he ever allowed that pledge to be made. It will cost him just as dear as his original retreat did.
In my view, the people of this country in these last few days have made clear their own view about the conduct of industrial relations, with which the Bill is concerned. They have faced many difficulties and hardships. They have faced the immediate difficulties with courage and determination because of, and for the sake of, the longer-term interests of the nation which they have at heart. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House have had evidence of that. They will have found that although there has been resentment—

Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): On a point of order. I am sure that the Prime Minister does not want to mislead the House or the country, but by his recent remarks he has clearly implied that the Bill would have dealt with the recent electricity dispute. It is completely untrue to suggest this.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order but a point of argument which was also made yesterday.

The Prime Minister: I have—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have summarised what has been revealed and commented upon amply in the Press and which has also—[Interruption.]—been appreciated by the great majority of right hon. and hon. Members. It has been a resolve of the nation that as a community we should stand firm until a position is reached in which the interests of the community are respected. Allied to that has been a very real determination that our industrial relations ought to be conducted in a new way, to get away from the bickering and bitterness with which we are all too familiar, and to search for an orderly way of resolving difficulties; to establish rules which are fair to all, and then to make sure that those rules are kept to give everyone in industry a chance to work out a more fruitful relationship. This resolve has been quite clear in the public mood, and it gives particular importance to the timing of this debate. It was said years ago that there is nothing so strong as an idea whose time has come.
The ideas in the Bill have been widely discussed and carefully prepared. The time has now come to carry through this reform which the people overwhelmingly demand.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: In his speech the Prime Minister has ignored some of the important aspects of the conditions and circumstances in which the party opposite is introducing the Bill. We know that trade unions are within the law already. What the Prime Minister has to justify is the extension of the law into trade union activity and industrial relations, and to show that this is the best way of achieving a common purpose. We are not against change. We have views on how change should be brought about. If change can be achieved by voluntary action, by self-discipline instead of statutory discipline, we believe that that is the better way.
The party opposite has not a good record on either industrial relations or trade union law. I was very interested in the philosophy of the Secretary of State when he read the first Clause. He referred to liberty and freedom, order and discipline, and we were told that many fears entertained about the Bill would

prove to be unfounded. He also said that there was no reason to doubt the Government's motives, and that the purpose and object of the Bill was contained in Clause 1.
On these benches we have a philosophy about trade unions, too, and it goes back a very long way. Our aims are to make trade unions strong and free to strive for improvements in people's living standards, to enable them to play a constructive rôle in industry and society, and to combine their growing strength, which we on these benches welcome, with modernisation, moderation and responsibility.
The Prime Minister may say that those are his aims, too, but I regret to say that millions of trade unionists, including the most respected, responsible and trusted members of the Trades Union Congress, do not believe that; and, I am sorry to say, neither do we. When I was on the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, as I was for nearly 10 years, we used to go carefully through the agenda beforehand, and sometimes we had before us a motion to which, on the face of it, one could not object. It looked all right. But the late Arthur Deakin, a shrewed and powerful man, used to say, "It is not the wording of the motion that matters so much as who is moving it." So even where the wording of the Bill seems fairly harmless, we have to see who is moving it.
Why should we on these benches have any reason to doubt the Government's motives? It is because the Tory record on trade union legislation in my lifetime has been pretty awful. The last major change was the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927, a punitive Measure deliberately intended to break trade union power. That Act was born on the benches opposite under a Conservative Government.

Mr. David James: Mr. David James (Dorset, North) rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down!

Mr. Houghton: I am among the dwindling number of survivors of the historic meeting at the Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street, when the General Strike was declared in April, 1926, and I shall say something of the consequences of that experience a little later.
As the Prime Minister said, or implied, although we spent a good deal of time yesterday on the detail of the Bill, the general principles and objects of it have not yet been decided by the House, for there was no approval of the Consultative Document in the Motion which the House carried; it was a Motion to note the Consultative Document. I shall, therefore, as did the Prime Minister, examine some of the broader aspects of the Bill and the conditions in which it is introduced.
In winding up yesterday, the Undersecretary of State asked: Is the Bill necessary? Is it fair? Is it workable? He answered, "Yes" to all three. But these are matters of opinion. The Secretary of State has neither asked for nor yet obtained from the House any approval of the Consultative Document, so each of us must bring his own judgment to bear on these questions. I disagree with the Under-Secretary of State, but my first observation is that this is a bad time to be discussing a Bill of this kind at all, and this is an important aspect of the matter on which the Prime Minister failed to comment.
The atmosphere at present is distinctly unfavourable for the introduction of a Bill of this kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] What is bad in it is being feared, denounced and hated by the trade unions outside, and what is good in it—which is not a great deal—can scarcely get a hearing. The reason for that—again, not mentioned by the Prime Minister—is that the Government have alienated the working people by their recently announced policies, and now the right hon. Gentleman is antagonising them. Many of the Tory backwoodsmen are beating their tom-toms and demanding that something be done about the unions. How can the Bill possibly receive a calm reception and rational debate in present circumstances?
The Prime Minister declared from the steps of No. 10 in June that his aim was to unite the nation. Now he is dividing it. The heading to a remarkably perceptive article in the Sunday Times last Sunday said it all:
To divide the nation is to fail to govern.
Last night, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) said that he thought it very

necessary to restore the consensus to get get acceptance of this kind of legislation in the country today.
As for freedom, in his famous Guildhall speech—which many of my hon. Friends seem to want to have placed in the Library of the House—the Prime Minister said of freedom, "You have it; you are going to get more of it; but you must use it aright". We want to know the respects in which the Bill enlarges the area of freedom. The truth of the matter is that the Government are visibly failing in the main purpose of government, and I believe that in due course they will be dismissed for it, probably sooner than many expect.
We wish to be fair, even in a debate such as this which rouses considerable emotion and controversy. Admittedly, the Government inherited noticeable trends towards inflation. This was brought about by only partial success—[Interruption.] This seems to amuse the Prime Minister. Did he find that inheritance funny when he came to power? I was saying that the trend has been brought about by the only partial success of the prices and incomes policy and its subsequent failure—let us face it—under a Labour Government. But since last June the Government have done nothing but aggravate the situation.
The mini-Budget, with its shift of social expenditure from the State to the individual, and the failure to give more support to families with young children, except among the desperately poor, have fanned the flames of social discontent. Fears of a prices spiral and the substantial gains of the pacemakers in wage movements have, naturally, aroused most serious anxieties among others about being left behind. This is what many of the pay claims now are about, and especially in the public sector which is notoriously too close for comfort to the chilly winds of plateaux and the draughts surrounding guiding lights. The public sector is the one in which there is the deepest apprehension.
I was in this sector of trade union activities myself, and I know the difficulty there has been over the years in settling any firm principle for fixing pay in the public services. Civil servants, for example, took years to obtain fair comparability as a firm principle for


fixing their pay, and they were always worried lest Governments, in pursuance of their economic aims, might resist the application of the principle upon which they had staked so much.
I turn now to a general look at the industrial scene in Britain today, where, I think hon. Members on both sides will agree, there is much room for disquiet. A new generation of workers are on the march. They are seeking to uphold their dignity and attain fulfilment of their personality. There are tensions and stresses on the shop floor, due to intensive methods of modern industrial production. Small things spark off big rows. The use of power has become obsessive in the minds of some people. The level of tolerance is falling all the time. There are more and more conditions up with which the worker will not put.
People generally and workers in particular feel that they are being propelled helplessly along by hidden forces of finance, science and technology over which they have no control. This state of discontent cannot be brought within the framework of any trade union law. We are in the midst of one of the great human changes in history, and the problem all the time is how to contain it, how to encourage what is good in it without aggravating it by pettifogging interference by the law. The urgent task of Government as never before is to unite the nation with policies which make us feel that we are all one of another, and that our common aim is to make life really worth living for all the people.
Instead, the Government are pushing us towards the more ruthless social and competitive philosophy of the Britain of my youth, to be seen even today in the United States. The Government are preaching to the unions on Sundays and turning the lawyers on them for the rest of the week. What can be more futile than to contain symptoms of widespread unrest by legal constraints and collective penalties? This means first the law, then the courts, then the bailiffs and then the police. This Bill deals with the traditions, instincts and behaviour of mass movements of large sections of workers, bound together by the struggles and history of a common interest and purpose and organised for collective action.
The Prime Minister ignores this. He talks of the people of Britain expecting something as if 10 million trade unionists were not part of them. We are talking about them when we refer to what the people of this country expect. The great mass of the trade unionists are expecting a fair deal, they are expecting to retain their freedom to combine, they are expecting to retain their right to negotiate, to retain their right to strike. What is there between us except that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are disqualified from joining in this discussion?
The exercise of the traditional rights and policies and practices of the trade union movement, strenuously fought for, often bitterly won, cannot be converted into a form of industrial delinquency and pitched into the realm of law and penalties without deep resentment on the trade union side. No doubt many hon. Members have read the plausible paragraphs of the Consultative Document and wonder what the fuss is about. Is it not fair; does it not seem right; is it not necessary; will it not be workable, what is the matter? Fundamentally, what is the matter is that there is a wide difference in thought and mode of life and attitudes between working people and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. This is about pride and history.
Many unions will be required to alter their rules to qualify for registration. We might just as well ask the Church of England to alter the 39 Articles to get State approval. Suppose trade unions said in large numbers that they would prefer not to register but soldier on and sweat it out to retain what they believe to be their right to conduct their business in their own way. In any case, it is a mistake to try to codify human behaviour for those who have to live together where the mood and circumstance make great differences in attitudes between men and women on both sides of industry.
This Bill reads like a guide to good order and discipline in a grammar school. It was drafted in the solitude of the Inner Temple, and many of the provisions will not withstand the mighty roar of disapproval from the mass meetings. The Donovan Commission was sensitive to the deep complexities of its task, but this Government think they know better. Again, I will be frank with the House. The Labour Government at one time


thought that they knew better until they persuaded the T.U.C., as they were entitled to do and as it was proper to do, to take on board in the voluntary movement the aims and purposes which otherwise would have to be achieved by legislation. This Government are in no position to get that response from the Trades Union Congress, and so they are attempting to do it by legislation, without consultations or consent.
If the Trades Union Congress had been left to get on with the job, it would have been making good progress by now in building up its authority with the unions. But the Tory Government have wrecked it. The Government are so foolish as to believe that they can introduce a Measure like this without any prior consultation or prospect of cooperation. Despite all that Donovan said about compulsory strike ballots and against the introduction of new procedures for dealing with public utility stoppages, the Government go stubbornly on.
Union ballots have many problems, and those of us who have had to conduct them know what they are. There are problems of time, cost and security. On the face of it, there are opportunities in, for example, Clause 48 for serious mischief where a dissident minority can be in a position, so it appears, to force a ballot on the question of sole bargaining agent every two years. Many similar questions were raised yesterday. In my experience, very few Bills have been introduced in which so much is in doubt or obscure. We have only touched the fringe of the legal picnic that we shall have in Committee.
Only decided cases, reached at great cost in time and money, will make sense of many of the general phrases such as "arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination". There has been nothing like this since the Trade Disputes Act, 1927, and that was the Tory idea of putting handcuffs on unions which were getting above themselves. No wonder the Labour Government repealed that Act lock, stock and barrel at the first opportunity. I was there in 1926. I saw great men of the trade union movement, including Ernest Bevin, sing themselves to disaster to the hymn "Abide With Me". They were men of character and integrity, patriotic men whose last thought was to overthrow the Constitution or intimidate

Parliament. When the law had construed their actions as an attempt to do both, they speedily called off the General Strike and the miners were left to struggle on alone. Then the wrath came. A sympathetic strike was outlawed; the closed shop in local government employment was made unlawful; the Civil Service associations were banished from the T.U.C. and their political funds dispersed. The Civil Service Union had to get a certificate of approval from the Registrar to make sure that it was fit for civil servants to belong to.
During the war, when I and some of my friends went to the then Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, to beseech him, in view of the war situation and of the co-operation and patriotism of the trade unions, to repeal that part of the 1927 Act which forbade Civil Service unions belonging to the T.U.C, the tears streamed down his face and he confessed that his Conservative supporters would not let him do it. The great man, the biggest of the war leaders, was not able to persuade his hon. Friends, even during the war, to release the ban on Civil Service associations joining with others for their mutual benefit. Not even Ernest Bevin, who was Minister of Labour at the time, could win back their freedom. His hour came in 1946—an hour for which he had been waiting 20 years, to move the repeal of the 1927 Act.
The House will forgive me if I feel deeply emotional about those experiences at the hands of people who preceded right hon. and hon. Members opposite. I simply cannot listen to a Conservative who says that he wants to strengthen trade unions. He is not fit to try. This must be left to those of us on this side of the House and to the trade unions.
The Labour Government left an uncompleted task last June, and we shall take it up again. It was an honourable endeavour to assist trade unions in their work. We had published a Bill to which probably right hon. and hon. Members opposite would not take serious exception. It can be studied afresh and discussed with the unions. We shall give more attention to management—the education and training for management and the qualifications for management. It takes a lot of training to make a craftsman, but anybody can be a manager.


Any blunderbuss can be a staff man making lots of trouble and mischief.
There are two sides to every dispute. What the public hears most about is what the unions are doing. All too frequently they hear very little about how management brought about the dispute. Managers are as important as engineers and designers. In some places management still lives in the era of the bully and the sack.
The solution to industrial relations, to the extent that there is any such thing permanently in our changing society, lies mainly with those directly involved in them. It is there that we should get things moving. The Government have lost one of their most valuable assets in undertaking this exercise, and that is the good will of the unions. It is no good saying that it is the wild men who are protesting loudly about the Bill. This Bill is an affront to the responsible leaders of the trade union movement. How can it possibly succeed without their support?
We want a revival of the spirit brought about in the early days after the First World War by a distinguished Speaker of the House, Mr. J. H. Whitley, the Chairman of the Whitley Committee. He created the Whitley Councils throughout the public services here and in the Government services in the Commonwealth which are now celebrating 50 years of fruitful work. Speaker Whitley learned his industrial relations the hard way, as an employer in Halifax, and in his dealings with the most unpredictable and at times most unruly and noisy group of workers I know—the House of Commons. We have no qualifications to talk to anybody about behaviour, still less about efficiency and productivity. We are as Victorian as the most backward mill in my constituency.
This Bill is not the answer. It is not the small print which we must look at so much as the men behind the print. They are spreading disaffection in the land. They are stimulating pressures in our acquisitive society which make for militancy and unreason. The Prime Minister did not examine the turmoil in social and industrial life which is creating this restiveness of human activity and purpose.
We believe that there is an alternative to the Bill, but it will not come in this

Parliament and it will not come from this Government. To find that constructive alternative is the task which we on these benches are setting ourselves.
As the Prime Minister has referred to statements made about the intentions of a future Labour Government concerning the Bill, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) last night, may I be permitted to give the authorised version, of which, for greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy. What we say is this—and let me put it on the record because this is what we intend to do:
We call upon the National Executive, in conjunction with the Parliamentary Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress, to develop our constructive alternative to the Tory Bill which will ensure that a workable accord between a future Labour Government and the unions and their members can be put to the electorate as a firm basis for the repeal of the Industrial Relations Bill now before Parliament.
That is what we say, and that, I am confident, will come to pass.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Adam Butler: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye so that I may make my maiden speech. I am very pleased to make it in the last few days of Mr. Speaker's active service in the Chamber.
My constituents in Bosworth will excuse me if I do not give a long description of the constituency's excellence. We are down-to-earth people who live and work in West Leicestershire, and we like to get on with the job. My predecessor, Mr. Woodrow Wyatt, a distinguished Parliamentarian, would wish me to debate the matter in hand. I should like to say only this about him. His independence of mind and action proved attractive to his constituents for many years. I hope to emulate his independence of thought, but I hope that in so doing I shall not fall out with my Front Bench to the same extent as he fell out with his Front Bench.
Yesterday the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) gave maiden speakers a little homily. I respect his words as I respect his 50 years' service as a trade unionist. If I overstep the limit of non-controversiality, I beg the indulgence of the House.
This is a controversial Bill, with disturbing, and meant to be disturbing, implications for some people. The controversy will die down only when the proposals are properly understood and recognised for what they are meant to be, and when elements outside the House stop fanning the flames of that controversy. The Bill will only be properly understood when it is seen to contain a set of fair and reasonable rules under which the voluntary system can freely operate.
As right hon. and hon. Members would expect, I shall speak from my own experience and from a study of industrial relations for a number of years. I have worked, and I mean worked, in industry for 15 years. I started off by experiencing 168-hour working, and I may be one of a comparatively few hon. Members who have done so. I do not mean 168 hours round the clock: hon. Members will recognise the seven-day, three-shift system. Recently I have risen to management and have been running manufacturing and selling units in my constituency. This is a broad experience which allows an insight into industrial problems.
My experience has been largely in an industry where industrial relations are good. Our principal union is the Hosiery Workers' Union, and I say " our" because management and union see eye to eye on the main objectives. As the Prime Minister said this afternoon, both sides see that on the future prosperity and profitability of our industry depend its ability to pay good wages and defend the jobs of the union members. Relationships are good, in that we have procedural and substantive agreements which allow for plant bargaining. We have in the past negotiated three-year agreements which have been observed, and for men at least we have moved from what might be described as the obsolescent system of piece-rate payment to what is effectively a time rate with an added incentive bonus. This has all been done under a voluntary system.
Hon. Members might well ask why we should alter this state of affairs. If all industry had the virtually strike-free record of the hosiery industry and plenty of other industries, there would be much less need for the Bill. There would need to be a tidying up of what

has become an anomalous situation in the law, but much would not be necessary. Unfortunately this is not the case.
Following advice from the Opposition Front Bench yesterday, instead of taking to bed with me tomes of law, I took "In Place Of Strife" and re-read it. I am struck by the similarity of the analysis of the problem and of the solution—although there are important distinctions in the degree and emphasis of the solution—to the proposals in the Bill. The author, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), clearly saw some need for an outside force to help to rectify the situation. "In Place Of Strife" required a greater use of law and of lawyers. By implication the author saw that legal agreements should eventually be legally binding. The difference lies in what that force should be. In "In Place Of Strife" it was to be the force of the intervention of Government. The Secretary of State could produce an order to recognise unions; an order on the employer to bargain; an order on the employer not to recognise unions as bargaining agents; an order for a conciliation pause, and so on.
Our proposals put maximum emphasis on the continuance of voluntary relationships within a framework of law, as opposed to interference by Government. In this country we observe and respect the law if it is fair and sensible, but we in industry bitterly resent interference in matters which industry can better deal with itself from its own experience.
I hope in due course to see agreements become legally binding. This will ensure better preparation of agreements and, more important, bring about longer periods of trouble-free running in industries which are beset by intermittent troubles. Whatever may be the argument about America losing more days through strikes than this country, the general feature in America is that strikes come at the end of a period of trouble-free running for which management and men are able to plan.
In opening the debate yesterday my right hon. Friend emphasised the importance of the C.I.R. This is clearly close to the centre of the Bill, and I shall want to look very closely at the Clauses defining its responsibilities, areas and sequences of action. I shall also want to


look at the safeguarding of minorities. By that I mean the clerical and professional staff whose position can easily be overcome by the majority of manual workers.
The Bill has been criticised as taking away freedoms and rights. It has been said that it does not have majority support in the country. I am on the edge of controversy here, but, if the House will permit me, I will read a letter which is typical of many letters which my hon. Friends have received:
I have never voted anything but Labour in national elections, but I am wholeheartedly in favour of reform in industrial relations … I am convinced that, quite apart from the emotional outburst caused by the power cuts, the great majority of people hope that our elected representatives will not give in to industrial pressure.
This I think is the crux of the matter:
Some kind of order and reason must come into the country's economic affairs. You have the good will of us all in your efforts to end irresponsible stoppages.
I could not have summed up my own feelings better than that letter does. I believe that the majority of the people are behind the Government, and behind the proposals in the Bill. They certainly were on 18th June, and that is why I have had the pleasure of speaking in this Chamber this afternoon.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Neil McBride: I listened to the debate on the Consultative Document and to yesterday's debate. I listened to the Prime Minister this afternoon, and I marvelled that he should say that there were delicate and important issues in the Bill. Of course there are. The delicate and important issues are industrial relations, which were never more important than now when this country can live only as well as it can sell abroad.
Industrial relations cannot be computed, but that they are valuable, intangible and very real no one can doubt. Here, the man who heads a grade 3 Administration is dividing the nation. The Bill is the greatest divisive factor we have seen for many years.
I note that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, from the industrialists to the so-called workers, do not state their interest, but I will state mine. I have been a

member of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers for over 30 years. I am the son of working people. I represent a constituency in South Wales which returned me with a majority of thousands because of the trade unionists in that great Socialist belt. I am a former secretary of the Trade Union Group of M.P.s in this House. These are distinctions which are personal to me and of which I am proud.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) was right that one should declare one's interest. Yesterday I was appalled to hear one hon. Gentleman, declaring that he was a libertarian, say that he was in favour of bashing the trade unions in Belper. The hon. Gentleman forgot all the lessons of history. The Minister is, I think, a former industrialist. He will have read history and will find historians on these benches who will always find parallels.
It is unfortunate, but true, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said today, that the people of this country do not trust this Government.

Miss Mary Holt: Rubbish.

Mr. McBride: The hon. Lady might be an expert on rubbish. In that case I bow to her expert knowledge.
The Labour Party and the Trade Union Movement will oppose the Bill to the uttermost limit of the law. We will oppose it in totality. When we come back—it may be soon—we shall repeal it.
Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell)—he and I are members of the same organisation; I hold the same qualifications as he does—said that the Tories have never loved the trade unions; they never will. The road from Tolpuddle in Dorset through Peterlee to the 1970s is studded with examples of industrial victimisation, repression and social ostracism. Nobody can deny that. The facts are there for all to see.
Let us look at those whom the Tory Government are attacking: the unions, the nebulous faceless ones, the unidentified. They are used to the faceless ones, but these people are easily identified. They are the people who talk to


me over my garden wall as I cut the grass in front of my house. They are the women in my area who do a good job and then come home and make an excellent job of running a home. When I have an opportunity to go to the football field in Swansea to see the City win, I come up the road with the blokes, ordinary people like myself, some of the 10 million. The right hon. Gentleman should have a care electorally because they have families; they have votes. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that—[Interruption.].
The Bill does not comprise original Tory thinking. The right hon. Gentleman and the Solicitor-General have borrowed from the American, the German, the French and the Italian legal scenes.
The right to join or not to join a union comes from the Germans. The enforce-ability of collective bargaining is of French and Italian origin. The old Taft-Hartley Act, the cooling-off period, is well known. The Bill is a composite of something about which the Tories have not thought.
There is no doubt that the trade unions are fighting against not merely repression but legal strangulation. I believe that it is the duty of everyone in this House and of the free Press, for which I have a profound respect, to present a balanced picture to the country. We should let the people know precisely what is afoot.
Even now the Minister is perhaps a little worried. The right hon. Gentleman has said that if consultations can be entered into he will alter the Bill. He is on record as saying that. Yet the Minister told the trade unions: "You are welcome to come and discuss my document as long as you stick to details." But the crooked pillars remain. What cooperation did the right hon. Gentleman expect from that?
Recently the Solicitor-General was reported in the Daily Telegraph as saying that
… the new law would reaffirm and set beyond all doubt basic principles which protected the right of employees to strike and to act in combination … The law … would be law with a human face.
I suggest that the Solicitor-General, who is a veritable tyro in industrial relations, did not know what he was talking about.
The Minister of State said that we could not expect the Government to carry out the Bill without the co-operation of the trade unions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby has stressed that the trade unions are responsible bodies. The Prime Minister talked about moderate leaders, but he was careful not to name them. In fact, he could not. The people in the trade union leadership who support the Bill can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
The Government hope that the Bill will be on the Statute Book before the Summer Recess and that it will begin to operate next autumn. The Government are seeking to tie the trade unions by having rules vetted by a Registrar. The right hon. Gentleman, who had the privilege of writing in my trade union's journal this month, knows better than most that that union is the most democratic in the world. Over many years it has made provision for rules revision. In every branch room there is a rules revision book in which members can enter suggestions. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say me no. Therefore, that argument does not apply to my union.
Let us consider the code of industrial practice which has to be presented within one year of the passage of the Bill. What is in the code? No one knows. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman knows. But he is singularly coy about it. I believe that it is wrong that the Minister should be empowered from time to time to alter it as he sees fit.
Turning to the Clause dealing with the simple issue of the right to join or not to join a trade union, I would say that since June this has been causing trouble in Germany. This is embodied in the trade union law of the West German Republic. What will happen? The free rider, the man who will take everything for nothing, will disrupt authority. He will erode the authority of the trade unions and create dissension in the shop. I accuse the Minister of adopting the old French colonial maxim of "divide and rule".
Consider the principle of the closed shop. I asked the Minister last Thursday if it had not been of inestimable value to the country in maintaining high standards of skill in qualifications and he was forced to say "yes".
I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West that the employer alone should not be the sole labour recruiting agent. The system has stood the test of time and has been of value to the country. But the agency shop is a hotch-potch if ever there was one. It is a product of several disordered minds. We shall find with agency agreements that the deciding factor is not trade union members, but those who are not in a trade union.
I believe the Bill will create chaos in industry. There is no doubt that it will cause trouble for those who, like myself, have been shop stewards in one industry in particular—and at one time I was a deputy general convenor of shop stewards—where there are no industrial relations; namely, the shipbuilding industry. No hon. Gentleman opposite can tell me anything about the good graces of employers. I have never experienced any.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: What a lot of nonsense!

Mr. McBride: The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) represents a smallish county and has a smallish mind.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Lewis rose—

Mr. McBride: No, I will not give way. What will happen is that industrial relations will be enveloped in a cocoon of case law, and shop stewards will be bewitched, bothered and completely bewildered because the Bill is vicious anti-trade union legislation. The chief responsibility of the new registrar is to ensure that trade union and employers' association rules conform to certain standards and are observed. I have already mentioned my own trade union's rules. If the Minister wants to find any better standard than those rules, he is looking for rules par excellence.
On the presumption of creating legal enforceability in collective bargaining, it is ludicrous to seek to abolish that which is freely recognised; namely, the observance of settlements binding in honour only, which, amazingly, are well observed and work very well. Why alter this situation? Where will the benefits accrue? I suggest that there will be no benefits,

and no hon. Gentleman opposite can say otherwise.
If we are to be confined in the rigidity of a legal straitjacket, then we must deal with the question of unfair practices. What happened yesterday was that when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) spoke on the point of law it emerged that there were five lawyers in the House all of whom had different opinions. We shall find the matter of precedent impinging on the argument. The only people who will benefit are the members of the best closed shop in this country, the lawyers, though personally I have an affection for the law.
In the list of so-called unfair industrial practices in the matter of freedom from liability for action offenders could be called upon to pay compensation. However, in the Bill there is no mention of a man without whom modern industry could not cope; namely, the shop steward. I know the Government do not like shop stewards, but industry could not get on without them. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who has been connected with industrial matters for so long, knows as I do that shop stewards are the people on the spot who make arrangements, and their agreements work well and enable the whole industrial process to continue.

Mr. John Page: Mr. John Page (Harrow, West) rose—

Mr. McBride: No, I will not give way. Everybody knows the ostensible reason for the unofficial strike and the Bill itself makes special provision for getting at the wildcats. But the real reason behind an unofficial strike may be that a certain issue is the last straw which breaks the camel's back, or it could be due to a dozen other reasons.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby said that an examination of industry could be effective in finding a solution. Middle management, which is pretty rotten in British industry, could be examined with a view to seeing what contribution it could make. I agree with what was said by my union president, to whom reference was made yesterday, that this Bill is probably the most iniquitous piece of legislation to be placed upon the Statute Book.
If we look at the penalties contained in the Bill, we see that even the Cloth Pressers Union, with 120 members, is liable to a £5,000 fine. The Tory sledgehammer intends to enact provisions to crack a nut like the Chain Makers and Strikers Union with a similar penalty when that union contains only 236 members. There are some unclear passages in the Bill which will have to be clarified.
Clause 52 empowers an employer to disclose information in accordance with good industrial relations, but he also has a right to withhold information. There again is a conflict which will need to be clarified. Trade unions are required to carry out agreements and procedures and the situation may well occur—which would be a ludicrous situation—that the general secretary of my union could be held responsible for the actions of 1,300,000 fellow-members.
It is significant that many big and powerful groups have given a cautious welcome to the Bill. Indeed, British Leyland, one of the largest concerns in the United Kingdom, has expressed the view that reforms can be achieved only by management and workers getting together voluntarily. I believe that that is right. The Bill in its present form would, if enacted, contravene the International Labour Office resolutions which have been ratified by the United Kingdom. It is clear that the Bill will bring political action into industrial relations and eventually will be the reason for causing chaos and harm to industry.
There will be a new hierarchy of 1,000 civil servants as a result of the provisions of the Bill. A sum of £5 million will be required to carry out its requirements. This comes ill from the Conservative Party, which during Labour's term of office railed against the increase in the number of civil servants. We on these benches will oppose the Bill, which is designed to bring the trade union movement to heel with the aid of the stick. It follows inevitably that we shall work to see the day when it is repealed.
The Government have forgotten that the T.U.C. has made great strides in modernising the trade union structure. On a day when the importance of industrial relations was never more strongly exemplified, a Tory Minister throws a spanner into the works.
I wonder whether hon. Members opposite have thought that running through the trade union movement like a golden thread has been the undoubted courage and ability of my forebears in the trade union movement. The direct political forebears of hon. Members opposite repressed and victimised my people and ostracised them socially. But with the courage that is legendary we won the day. [Interruption.] That might be unpleasant to hon. Members opposite, but it is a fact and I should like to imprint it on the minds of hon. Members opposite.
That is why in the end our viewpoint will prevail and we shall see the Bill repealed, Providence willing. Tory Governments created the necessity for the workers of this country to combine to secure decent wages and conditions, though not all have yet achieved that standard. The Tories sought to victimise and repress my forebears, and they lost. They will lose again in these modern days when the Bill is thrown out.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. McBride: I shall not give way. I am sorry. I am not discourteous, but I have already said "No", and I hope that hon. Members will understand.
History will record that though the Tory Government of 1970 introduced a Bill seeking to repress the trade union movement, the resilience and fighting ability of the movement saw to it that we defeated the Tories yet again.

5.42 p.m.

Mrs. Peggy Fenner: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech. I am mindful of my good fortune when many hon. Members wish to speak. I trust that the House will have no cause to criticise the length of my contribution, but I admit that it may be a little difficult for me to be entirely non-controversial. I ask hon. Members for the traditional indulgence of the House towards a new Member, and hope that they will forgive me if I lean rather heavily upon it.
I have the honour, as a Kentish maid, to serve a remarkably individual Kentish constituency, comprising the ancient cathedral city of Rochester and the great historic naval and military town of


Chatham. In this service I follow distinguished predecessors, the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). The last Member, Mrs. Anne Kerr, made many highly individual contributions to debates in the House, and she was a keen supporter of the view that the House needed more women.
It comes as a surprise to many people to learn that Rochester is the fifth busiest port in the country. It is true that this is mainly due to the activities of the B.P. oil refinery on the Medway. But certainly, unlike many other ports in the country, it has enjoyed harmonious industrial relations, a credit to the men and management.
My constituency, in addition to its historic amenities, is an industrially expanding area. It is shown as such in the South-East Study, and, consequently, it is clear that fair, just and good industrial relations are vital to the well-being of the people I serve. Although the naval dockyard acreage falls primarily within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), many people from Rochester and Chatham work there, and it must be a matter of satisfaction for all the parties concerned that after many months of patient negotiations a productivity agreement has been secured.
My interest in the Bill is not only because it is an important matter for my constituents, but because I believe it to contain principles vital to the cause of individual freedom and human rights. Hon. Members will know that I have particular reason to be well aware of the support given to human rights, certainly in the international sense, by past and present Members opposite. It seems, regrettably, that they have a blind spot about the human rights denied to many by union action.
I wish to speak to Part II of the Bill:
Rights of Workers
and specifically about Clause 5, which speaks of a worker's right:
… if he so desires, to be a member of such trade union as he may choose;

(b) subject to subsections (3) and (4)"—


dealing with the agency shop agreement—

the right, if he so desires, to be a member of no trade union or to refuse to be a member of any particular trade union or other organisation of workers".
Reference was made yesterday to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and to the clause that states that no one should be compelled to belong to an association. That seems to be a basic human right to which our people are entitled.
Because of my long association with local government, I read with interest the response of N.A.L.G.O. to the Government's Consultative Document on Industrial Relations. Before I offend against the strictures to new Members yesterday by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), may I say that I am referring to that union only very respectfully, and admitting that its document is against the Government's proposals. Nevertheless, within a paragraph headed:
Issues of Principle
there is the following sentence:
… on the need to preserve a fundamentally voluntary system of industrial relations … firmly rooted in a tradition of independent and responsible self-government by a Movement whose ineradicable base is voluntary association.
That may well be the view from N.A.L.G.O.'s window, but I should like to tell the House of a matter brought to my attention which hardly falls within the phrase "voluntary association".
It concerns the young owner of a firm which employs about 50 or 60 staff. I understand there are fewer than 50 such firms in the country. Their work is contracted out to them by large firms with their own similar departments, and only when the pressure of work extends their own staff beyond capacity.
The union involved has, by strike and other industrial action, "induced"—the word used in the Bill—the larger firms to sign agreements containing clauses saying that they will not contract work out to any firm which does not operate a closed shop. The young owner of the firm to which I refer has now had placed before him an agreement which he is requested to sign before 1st January. His staff were members of the union. Many of them have complained to him about the union's actions, and one of them has thrown in his union card in disgust at the union organisers' behaviour. The firm's


owner is now confronted with the agreement, which he knows to be totally in breach of the Bill's proposals, though they are not yet law, and confronted also with the prospect of the enforced dismissal of a loyal employee and, presumably, payment of redundancy pay.
Hon. Members will see clearly that this firm and its staff, having at present no protection in law, are confronted with extinction unless they comply with the closed shop agreement—

Mr. Ashton: Quite right.

Mrs. Fenner: I leave other hon. Members and the public at large to assess whether this is a freedom and a human individual right.
Even more important than this firm, the one man who has rejected his union because of its action is denied the basic human right to take this decision to reject the union to which he faithfully belonged, because of its action, and thus to retain his livelihood. Surely, while there remains one man or woman in this country subjected to this unfair industrial practice, the Bill is necessary—

Mr. Ashton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Fenner: I am sure that no hon. Members would wish this cap to fit them—

Mr. Ashton: Even though this is a maiden speech, will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Fenner: Hon. Members will have noted that, not wishing to infringe upon their kind indulgence, I do not refer to the union by name. My reason for the cloak of anonymity in regard to the former union member and the firm is different. While I have immunity and privilege in this House for the things I say, the owner of the firm in question and his loyal staff have no protection.
I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on this matter. In his reply, he has naturally drawn my attention to the provisions of the Bill, which will prevent this abuse. I have written again to him pointing out that it is only when the Bill is law that protection will be afforded. What is his advice in the interim to victims of this unfair practice?
I am sure that under Clause 11(2) no one person can selfishly exercise this human right not to belong to a trade union. Applied to the case that I have set before the House, the union could clearly, under that provision, desire this employer to enter into an agency shop agreement. The employer, if unwilling to do so, or the union or negotiating panel may make application to the Industrial Court which, if satisfied under paragraphs (a) and (b) can request the Commission to proceed with a view to taking a ballot on the question. This Clause ensures that if it is the wish of the majority of workers in a firm, no one man and no member can thwart the wish of the majority to seek to secure such an agreement.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)—I am sorry that she is not here to hear me say this—said yesterday that the Clauses concerned with the agency shop agreements were irrelevant and a dangerous piece of frivolity. I am sorry that she should refer in such a way to legislation which pays heed to the wishes of workers about union representation. It is quite clear that, to her, what is in this case of importance is not the majority wish of the workers but only the unfettered power of the unions.
No union behaving responsibly and lawfully, and with the real interests of its members at heart, needs to fear that a majority would not support an agency shop agreement asked for and sought by such a union.
It is as a former member of a union, the A.C.S.D.D., that I speak in support of the Bill. I am certain that the interests of a strong and responsible trade union movement and the interests of individuals and, thus, of my country will be best served if men and women can continue to be sure that membership of unions is on the basis of voluntary association.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: May I exercise the privilege of a semi-old hand and congratulate the two maiden speakers so far in this debate? They replaced two great characters, Mrs. Anne Kerr and Woodrow Wyatt, both of whom I knew very well and for both of whom I had a great respect. Woodrow Wyatt was in trouble in the 1964–66 Parliament, and Anne Kerr was in trouble from the 1966 Parliament onwards. Every


one of us here this afternoon could pay tribute to the work of those two people.
However, to the maiden speakers I should like to make one or two suggestions. First, if there are any Whips about, they should send some notice to people making a maiden speech to inform them of the rules of the House, or the conventions as to what it is about.

Mr. Ashton: Would my hon. Friend not agree that it would be common courtesy for an hon. Member, making a speech attacking any particular union—as my own union has been attacked in two speeches yesterday and today referring to D.A.T.A.—to mention the name of the union and also the name of the firm involved? Would he also agree that there is no difference between a trade union putting pressure on a sub-contractor to make his employees join the union and any firm making a take-over bid for another firm? Surely if the principle of take-overs between firms is right for free society and free enterprise, it is equally right for a trade union doing the same thing.

Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his analogy: I think that that is so.
But to return to the question of maiden speakers, the position is, as I understand it, that all people coming into this House have served an arduous apprenticeship. They are not newcomers to this business but professional politicians. None of us, as a professional politician, should ask for the indulgence of the House or its protection during a maiden speech. I see no reason for this. The two maiden speakers this afternoon are capable of looking after themselves and answering interruptions.
When maiden speakers get up to speak, I understand that they should say that they are going to make some controversial remarks and have no objection to people intervening during their speech. This overcomes the problem. I am certain that the two speakers we have heard today could have said that they had no objection to interruptions, and all would have been in order. I would therefore suggest to the Whips that a note of this sort might go to maiden speakers saying that it is up to them to decide whether they want interruptions or not.

I hope that we can have some change over these conventions.
A few other conventions have been shattered this afternoon. One was the time today when the Prime Minister's mask fell off, pretty early on in his speech. He then went on to contradict the views of at least five members of the Government sitting on the Front Bench beside him. This raised a most curious situation. As one's eyes travelled from the Prime Minister along the Front Bench, we were going over in our minds some of their recent comments about this legislation. The right hon. Gentleman who sat next to him was referring to blackmail; he said that the unions were blackmailing the nation. I remember the right hon. Gentleman sitting next to him saying last week that the trade unions were holding the nation to ransom. The right hon. Gentleman's third colleague—and I made a note of his contribution—said that the trade unions were absolutely irresponsible.
Recognising all these contributions about organised labour, the Prime Minister went on to give us his solution, which was to strengthen trade unions. He said that what he wanted to do was to so frame the law of the country so that it would enable trade unions to act effectively, and therefore make more effective this blackmail and irresponsibility referred to by his right hon. Friends.
In an inflationary situation, of necessity there will be more strikes. One must inevitably follow the other. One of the tragedies of the political mechanics of a society such as ours is that it is not the other way about. I wish it were. When there is a need for strikes and militant action in industry it is during periods of depression or deflation. It is then that militancy would be most effective, but, unfortunately, it is only in periods of inflation that we have maximum militancy. There is a relationship between the number of strikes and what is happening in society and the fact that workers are now taking home a smaller share of the profits.
The other thing about the Prime Minister's speech was that it was the first time that we have had an honest acceptance that this Bill is about wages. This is the first time we had a statement from the Conservative Party saying that the policy on industrial relations is about


wages, trying to curb inflation and all the other phrases which they use. It is their method of intervening in the whole question of wage bargaining, in the hope that they will strengthen the employer, enabling him to resist more effectively the demands of organised labour. The Prime Minister said this this afternoon, and that was the point at which his mask fell away and we had the truth for the first time.
Now we understand what it is about, and it confirms the views expressed by the C.B.I., which said that this Bill will enable industry effectively to combat what is called "wage drift". The C.B.I. agrees that this will strengthen the employer, not trade unions, in dealing effectively with wage drift, particularly as it applies to piece workers.
The other point arose when dealing with the matter of the transfer of power to the shop floor. It is true, as my right hon. Friends have said, that power has shifted to the shop floor. Therefore, the Government, in arguing against this shift, say that the Bill is designed to help deal with the situation, to deal with militant shop stewards and this new power which has found its way to the shop floor and is effective in obtaining wage bargains.
The final point in the Prime Minister's comments was this curious misunderstanding as to what is going on. I hope that the powerful speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has answered his questions. I hope he understands that the T.U.C. and organised labour are opposed to the Bill and that it is the employers who support and welcome it. It seems as if the Prime Minister was claiming that there was support from the trade unions.
I have been reported in one or two newspapers as suggesting that the Bill should go through "on the nod", that we should not amend it. My view has been consistent from the beginning of the debate about procedure. It has been that we should intensify our opposition to it, that we should oppose the Bill in principle. I say that to do that we should not amend it. I welcome the Government's decision to allow the Committee stage to take place on the Floor of the House. It will enable us to oppose the Bill more effectively and promote our alternatives. My point is that it is a Bill

with which we disagree in principle, and because the rules of the House forbid Amendments which break the principle of the legislation we should not attempt to amend it but should design our own constructive new Clauses to replace the present ones.
I hope that ultimately this will be our strategy. I hope that we shall use the opportunities in Committee to oppose the Bill in principle and not amend it in the way that Bills have been amended here over the centuries. I know that it would be the first time that it would have been done but this is the one occasion when to stretch the Government to the limit we should argue the case in principle.
I turn to Part VIII of the Bill. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here because I want to refer to something he said about it. This is the Part of the Bill that deals with the 60-day cooling-off period. I want to quote from the Amalgamated Engineering Union Journal published the day before yesterday and containing an article by the Secretary of St0ate headed "The Government's view, by the Secretary of State for Employment". The right hon. Gentleman says:
Finally, to protect the national interests, it will propose measures for use as a last resort in an emergency. Where a strike may cause an emergency, the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to ask the N.I.R.C. either for a 60-day restraining order against its leaders, while everyone seeks an alternative solution, or a ballot if there is doubt whether the threatened strike has majority support. In no circumstances, I should add, would there he any power to order the individual to go back to work.
That is a clear statement that there is no power in the Bill to order workers to return to work if they are on strike.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has arrived in the Chamber. I am quoting from his statement that there is nothing in the Bill which would empower anyone or any court to order a striker back to work. Trade union leaders have already said that they will not order anyone back to work if a dispute occurs in these circumstances. It follows that if the C.I.R. or the N.I.R.C. or the trade union leaders have no power or desire to order people back to work this 60-day cooling-off period is non-existent. Any provision under Part VIII of the Bill cannot be effective in the circumstances described by the Minister.
Assuming that a dispute has taken place and a strike has occurred, it appears that even though the Minister may say that there is a national emergency and seek from the N.I.R.C. power to order a 60-day cooling-off period, neither the Minister nor the trade union leaders will have power under the Bill to order the men back to work. I take it that the 60-day cooling-off period would not be effective unless the men actually volunteered to return to work.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): The hon. Member is right to the extent that the Bill makes clear, as we made clear in the Consultative Document, that there is no power to order strikers as a whole to return to work. What the Bill does take power to do, and the power already exists through injunctions under the present law, is to get an order from the court that those who call or induce a strike should cease and desist from so doing. Hitherto in this country, and also in the United States where this power exists, injunctions of this kind have always been obeyed, and I suspect that they will continue to be obeyed.

Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to the Minister. He now confirms that even if trade unions or shop stewards do not try to persuade men to go back to work and the men themselves decide not to return to work, there is every right to ignore the 60-day cooling-off period ordered by the N.I.R.C.—

Mr. Stanley Orme: Contempt of court.

Mr. Atkinson: Under the Bill, it cannot be contempt of court. I know that if I am wrong I shall be corrected, but, as I read the Bill, there cannot be contempt of court. I understand that the Bill is worded as it is in order to allow men to remain away from work irrespective of any advice given to them; that if they wish to ignore such advice they are not in contempt of any court decision.

Mr. R. Carr: The law cannot compel, and we do not seek to compel, large numbers of men to do anything like that. The law can, if operated, place an order on those who induce or call strikes to do

certain things. If they do not obey the order of the court, they will be in contempt of court. Assuming that it was a registered union, the penalty for contempt of court would fall on the union—that is, the corporate body—and not on the individual union representatives. But let there be no mistake about it: contempt of court is a serious matter, and a serious penalty would fall on a union whose authorised officials did not obey the court order.

Mr. Atkinson: Again, I am grateful to the Minister, because it is part of my case that if the men remain away from work they are liable to destroy their own organisation if the property of the union is confiscated or measures are taken against the leadership as a result of their contempt. The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in the Amalgainated Engineering Union Journal is not correct. The men would be destroying their own union by ignoring the advice to return to work, because their property would, in part, be confiscated.
There is no clear definition in the Bill of what is an unusual industrial practice. One assumes that during a 60-day cooling-off period it would be quite in order for an employer to say to his workers, "I want you to work seven days a week. I want you to work all the possible overtime and step up the speed of production so that we can stockpile in order to face a strike when it comes about." If during the 60-day period the shop stewards refuse to do that, are they also in breach of any decision taken by the N.I.R.C.? According to the Bill, they are.
But there is worse than that. This legislation is hated by the trade unions because not only can they not prevent the employer from building up stocks in anticipation of a possible future strike but, assuming there was failure to agree after the 60-day period and there was a strike, it would be illegal for anyone to prevent that employer from delivering those goods to a customer, because the Bill forbids action to be taken which may harm some innocent person, and in this case the customer would be an innocent person. That means that the whole argument is loaded heavily against organised workers—

Mr. R. Carr: I certainly do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman unnecessarily but he was, with respect, talking nonsense a few minutes ago about what the employer could make his workers do during the 60-day cooling-off period. Of course he could not force his employees to work overtime and do all the things the hon. Gentleman mentioned. They are perfectly all right as long as they maintain their contract of agreement, and under the contract of agreement the employer could not force them to do any of the things about which the hon. Member talks. So, with respect, he is wrong.

Mr. Atkinson: Not at all. The right hon. Gentleman knows that if overtime is a particular feature in a workshop it is accepted as being normal working. If piecework is a normal function, the worker himself has no right to say that he will work to rule. He has no right in that 60-day period to say that he will work a minimum number of hours, work to rule or go slow. The Bill makes it impossible. It means that the employer can say, "We will continue to work overtime during the 60 days"—if that is the normal practice. Or he can say: "We will continue on piecework". Or he can say: "We will accelerate output in order to stockpile in readiness for a future possible dispute".
These are arguments which will doubtless be developed in Committee, and I do not want now to delay the House except to refer to procedure, and to take up a statement made by the Prime Minister. I will refer particularly to engineering.
I do not know whether hon. Members opposite know it, but since 1922 the employers have resisted any change in the York agreement and it is they who now look for a strengthening of their position by using the C.I.R. and the Industrial Court to make certain that their right to take unilateral decisions is reinforced by the law. That is what the employers are demanding and have demanded of the party opposite and, presumably, it is what they will get under the Bill. On the other hand, T.U.C. statistics show that about 55 per cent. of disputes are caused by decisions made unilaterally by employers to change working conditions, sequence operations, materials or the like.
Obviously, the C.I.R. and the N.I.R.C. will endorse the employer's right to take

decisions of that sort in the absence of consultation In fact, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, neither the C.I.R. nor the Industrial Court itself will reverse the whole of this procedure in industry and make a change which the employers have resisted for 48 years. Yet, if change is to be made, it must be made by the courts that the Minister wants to set up.
I come now to the question of what is likely to happen in the Trade Union Movement in the months ahead. The Trades Union Congress is to be recalled on either 16th or 18th March, and between now and then a lot of trade unions will want to make up their minds about what sort of action they will take and how the Labour movement as a whole will resist this legislation.
It is obvious from the decisions taken by the majority of executives so far that there will be no co-operation. Trade unions have rejected the legislation, made known their objection, and declared that they will not co-operate. It follows from that that no member of the Trades Union Congress or of a recognised trade union will accept any invitation from hon. Members opposite to take part in any of these quasi-judicial bodies—or even judicial bodies—set up by the Government. It is now generally accepted—words like " quisling " have been used—that any trade unionist would incur the wrath of his comrades in the union movement if he were to take on a job with the C.I.R. or the National Industrial Court. That is the first sign of non-co-operation.
Then there is non-registration. We all know that under these proposals all trade unions are registered automatically for the first three months of the Bill's operation. If unions decide not to register in the future, they must contract out. The discussions throughout the union movement now is on whether unions should contract out of the whole process of registration; and the unions' views will be put to the T.U.C. on 16th or 18th March. All of them recognise that there are difficulties. [Interruption.] I do not want to take on the hon. Member for Hendon. North (Mr. Gorst) on the subject of commercial radio. We all recognise his interests. We understand one of the real reasons why he is here.
Unions recognise that there are difficulties with superannuation funds and the property problems may be involved.
None the less, they recognise that they may be driven to contracting out of their registration obligations as proposed by the Bill.
I suggest that the argument that there are serious disadvantages may not be valid. If unions, registered or not registered, agree with any employer's proposition or industrial wage agreement, there is no question of registration and no problem. The problem arises only when there is disagreement—disagreement with the employer, disagreement with the decision of the C.I.R., or disagreement with the decision of the National Industrial Court. The point unions must then consider is that, if that is so, they lose immunity both ways. They lose immunity by non-registration and by the disappearance of the 1906 Act. They also lose immunity if they disagree with a decision taken by any of these courts or if they disagree with an employer. Presumably compensation against the union will be the same in both cases. Therefore, a trade union has nothing to gain from registration. This will be the basic consideration before the T.U.C. on 16th or 18th March.
During your absence, Mr. Speaker, we were interrupted for a little time. On your return we resumed a degree of reasonableness. None the less, I apologise for having delayed the House for longer than I originally intended.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. John Sutcliffe: I have listened to many speeches in the House since June. I have in mind the words of Edward Gibbon. He was most famous as an historian, but as a Member of the House he wrote:
The great speeches fill me with despair, the bad ones with terror.
He was eight years a Member and never made his maiden speech.
I am sure the House will understand if I approach my task with some apprehension. I may be controversial, but I hope not so controversial in the context of this debate that the House will not show me indulgence.
I must declare my interests. They are not substantial. I am a director of a family hotel business.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), in the debate on the Consultative Document, took us back to

the 1825 Act. I think it was Joseph Hume who said, during the passage of that Bill,
The trade unions are estranging their best friends.
The same may be said of the forces opposing this Bill so far as public sympathy goes.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said that the problems of 1970 are not cured by turning the clock back to 1870. In saying that the right hon. Lady turned the argument upside down. There is no question of turning the clock back. It virtually stopped in 1906, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister illustrated. The law governing unions has not advanced, although the British economy has. Today our economy is immeasurably more complex, highly geared and intermeshed than it was in the reign of King Edward VII. The community is vulnerable as never before. These things are so obvious that they should not need saying.
It simply is not good enough to say that we are all right as we are and as we were in 1906 and to say, as did the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), that we must wait for change by self-discipline. For at least the last 20 years we have been waiting for change, whether by self-discipline or by a new psychology, and we have been content to afford the luxury, if one does not call it injury, of a great many avoidable industrial troubles.
I am not saying that those industrial troubles have all been due to unions rather than management. There has been progress—progress in improvement and extension of the machinery for settling disputes and in removing, or at least alleviating, some of the greatest injustices of the past. Some of this progress has been relatively recent. It has not provided the psychological break-through or the discipline.
We have had progress in another direction, too. I refer to the not unsuccessful efforts of governments to secure and maintain full employment. The corollary of that full employment is the undreamt of power of organised labour. Everyone knows that concentration of private economic power can grow oppressive from lack of restraint. This is no new phenomenon.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the fair balance he was seeking to strike between freedom and order. Shakespeare knew about this. He expressed it no more eloquently than my hon. Friend, though perhaps more poetically:
Take but degree away, untune that string An heark what discord follows!
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that "unfettered freedom destroys itself". Shakespeare rendered it like this:
Power into will, will into appetite;
And appetite, an universal wolf,
So doubly seconded with will and power
Must make, perforce an universal prey And, last, eat up himself.
Our 16th century ancestors lived in an age of confusion and violence, if not of inflation, and they were as great as those of our own day.
I do not find the opposition credible or consistent. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has more than once intervened in the debate to point out, if race relations is suitable for legislative action, why not industrial relations? The argument is well nigh identical in the two cases. To support the one but to reject the other, on whichever side of the House, demands a great deal of casuistry.
A few moments ago I taxed the right hon. Lady who leads from the benches opposite for her insistence in turning the clock back. To understand the mentality of the party opposite, that is just what I propose that we should do. We should go back 100 years to the Ballot Act. It became law in 1872, but the die-hards fought it for more than two years in what a contemporary described as
the fiercest conflict ever known up to that time within the walls of Parliament.
In the tradition of all good last ditchers defending the indefensible, they said of the secret vote that it was "un-English", "the practice of America and the countries of Europe", "foreign to our habits and repugnant to our instincts". That is almost exactly word for word what hon. Members opposite are saying now about the legal framework.
The opponents of the ballot box said, "No hole-in-the-corner voting—publicity is the keynote of our constitution," to which hon. and right hon. Members opposite echo, "No legalistic structure."

Those were the words of the right hon. Lady earlier: " No legalistic structure—the voluntary system is the keynote of our negotiation."
But the parallel is more remarkable than that. They said of the Bill in 1870 that it would not stop and would not even check bribery. It is interesting that the Commission appointed in 1880, eight years after the Act, to investigate an Election Petition, was hailed to have proved them right. According to the Commission,
it did not appear that the mode of taking votes by ballot had had the slightest effect in checking bribery.
How easy it is at one and the same time both to overestimate and underestimate the effect of good law!
The Opposition condemn the Bill as unlikely to check or stop the abuse of strikes. It would be just as reasonable for them to assert that there should be no law or law courts because the law is sometimes breached. But how right my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in his emphasis, in his assessment of the purpose and effects of his Measure. He has said that he sees it as a means of educating people and influencing their behaviour, not as a preventive but a deterrent. I wish that hon. Members opposite would get the message. A piece of legislation is no painless overnight cure but more like a convalesence. The Bill is not a pill. The Opposition will abandon their pledge to repeal it, as surely as there is no pressure in Britain these days to repeal the Ballot Act, or in America to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. Once the unions get this law and hon. Members opposite come out of their last ditch, they will not want to go back.
My constituents in West Middlesbrough and Thornaby live south of the Tees, and they are surrounded by the Cleveland Hills, the North Yorkshire Moors and the sea. They work in what is appropriately called the "powerhouse of the North". Nowhere in this country will one find so great a concentration of industrial investment in chemicals, steel and oil, and port facilities which will soon be second to none. Nowhere in this country will one find an industrial complex so cut off by bad road communications from its main artery, the A1. There will be no through dual carriageway until 1975. But in almost every other respect the


growth of industrial Middlesbrough has been revolutionary. Barely 140 years ago, Joseph Pease sailed from Teesmouth to see the newly completed railway terminal, and he prophesied that the bare fields would be covered with a busy multitude. Middlesbrough in 1858 was described as
the town which has won a name without a history, is important without antiquity and commands the attention of statesmen by the magnitude of its commercial activities.
The recent merger of the towns alongside the Tees, including Norton which has a unique claim upon the attention of the House, has been no less revolutionary. It has created the country's newest county borough, which is also its seventh largest town.
Tees-side deserves to be better known. Its four revised constituencies are not even recognised in this House and probably will not be until seven years from the borough's creation. This is a particularly regrettable result of the last Government's failure to implement the Boundary Commission's proposals.
If our history has been short and dramatic, it also has its harsh side. Above national average unemployment for many years has been our lot in the North-East. Apart from the hardship of people out of work and the waste year by year—£50 million worth of output lost annually would not be too high a figure—it has left its mark on industrial relations. For most of the Trades Union Congress's 100 years' history, insecurity has probably been the most important single factor animating unions. It created a tradition of bloody-mindedness—the result of the not unjustified belief in the past that "if you don't do down you will be done down". So long as we continue in the North-East to lose more jobs than we gain—our gross loss in Tees-side is up to 3,000 jobs a year and so long as we continue to move rapidly from labour intensive to capital intensive industry, a sense of insecurity continues. It is difficult for us to extinguish completely the searing memories of the 30s. Even in a new generation they smoulder on.
It is against this background that tribute should be paid to management and men, many of whom are my constituents, involved at I.C.I. in what is perhaps the most comprehensive and radical reform of the industrial relations

system within any major British company. A new structure of pay and conditions has been agreed nationally, but it has to be negotiated at plant level before it can be implemented. The approach is a very positive one. It provides for wage increases of 20 per cent. or more, improved status, and the replacement of incentive bonus schemes in eight grades based on a job assessment scheme. It also deals with sick pay and annual holidays, provides no enforced redundancy, and concedes the closed shop. It is estimated that at least 10 per cent. of management time will be absorbed to introduce it, and that that cost in time and effort will continue while it is in operation. Every job is analysed, and revised. Objectives are modified by feed-back from the plant floor. Finally, jobs are classified on a points system according to grade.
The main opposition has come from craftsmen over that part of the scheme which allows production workers to do simple maintenance when no craftsman is available. Progress with this weekly staff agreement has been slower in Teesside than in other parts of the country, but Tees-side has more craftsmen than anywhere else. Bargaining is hard. To preserve the direct gains anticipated in productivity over a period is not easy.
The example of men and management at I.C.I. shows what can be done in a multi-plant company. I hope that the Bill will be a spur to plant bargaining of just this kind, with managements involved from top to bottom in negotiating basic wages and conditions of work instead of trying to adapt and fit national agreements to local plant circumstances. I am sure that this is the most critical factor in industrial success.
I am sure that a number of hon. Members will have seen the engineering industry's Handbook of National Agreements. It is a daunting tome and sufficient explanation of much industrial trouble. The weekly staff agreement—known as W.S.A.—approach demonstrates a much more realistic division between managers and managed. It is important to recognise that the interests of employees, employers and owners are not the same; yet the whole of our industrial relations has been based on the old dichotomy of workers and bosses. That cannot fit the industrial pattern of the future.
No one was more clear about this than my predecessor, Dr. Jeremy Bray. He foresaw more and more highly qualified employees with educations equal to that of managers as the result of advanced technology. Dr. Bray could claim to be more at home with a computer than any hon. Member of this House, and literally so since I believe that he had one in his sitting room. It may have helped him to make his disturbing calculation that Labour Government spending on the creation of new jobs cost more than pensioning off workers from the North-East to live in the South of France. While this portrays him at his most provocative, I am sure that he is missed by this House for his admirably thoughtful and commendably independent contributions to debates.
This Bill will not have, in that it will not need to have, any startling impact on a firm like I.C.I. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) said in a very fine maiden speech, there are firms in the country where the impact from the Bill will not be very great. At I.C.I., management and unions are unlikely to make their agreements legally binding. Negotiation is give and take, with a great deal of compromise. I am not sure that agreements which are full of reservations and exclusions can be expressed in legally effective language. However, it should be possible to make both sides agree on watertight arrangements for settling disputes and abide by them. Disputes procedures can be accurately described. Such a procedure can be made an element of every contract of work, and it should be made enforceable because disregard of it is both abusive and irresponsible.
The provisions for bargaining units in Clauses 41 to 51 will not have any major impact upon I.C.I. There are about nine unions involved at I.C.I. plants, and they have a signatory union approach equivalent to the joint negotiating panel envisaged by the Bill. It works well.
The Bill outlaws the closed shop, and this is a provision of W.S.A. which has been the subject of a lot of hard bargaining at I.C.I. But it is most unlikely that union membership will be affected materially. I have listened to the fears of union representatives that militants who are dissatisfied with a settlement will opt out, stir up discontent, and form break-

away unions. I do not dispute the strong feeling and the sincerity on this issue.
I think that the case for the closed shop was put more convincingly by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) than I have heard it put before. But the need to maintain bargaining power will be a strong deterrent to unions becoming fragmented. The agency shop is a compromise unlikely to command support on either extreme in this issue, though I think that it demonstrates my right hon. Friend's determination not to be dogmatic.
The public image of unions is that they are undisciplined and oppressive, though I do not suggest that that is a true reflection on the movement as a whole. There can be no denying that the public has been puzzled to understand why unions can be so harsh to individuals who refuse the join them and so tolerant of their adherents who refuse to adhere and be bound by union rules.
Fair rules, clearly defined responsibility, better finances and greater confidence will change the unions' image under the law. Mr. Frank Cousins had a sane attitude on this issue. He said:
I have never favoured making a man join. It should be within the power of our organisation to persuade people to come in.
I believe that the Bill will give unions a better case and the persuasive power that hitherto they have been unable to command.
I agree with the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) that too much hysteria has been worked up against the Bill. However, I cannot believe that he really thinks it irrelevant in the long and the short term, even to a firm like I.C.I. It is beneficial that it is there in the background. Its influence is all on the side of responsible people. The inept and irresponsible on both sides of industry will feel its pressures. But largely it will work undramatically, contrary to what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have led us to believe. It will be in the background and, at best, with time it will bring about a far better climate.
I am aware of no inconsistency in affirming my support for the Bill and at the same time my belief that the key to good industrial relations remains with management, men and unions. The Bill


represents a long overdue attempt to introduce in place of strife an element of reason, fair play and justice.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that many hon. Members, having sat here during our two days of debate so far, wish to take part. Brief speeches will help.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hanson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) on his maiden speech. The early part of what he had to say gave us the fruit of some literary researches, greatly appreciated by the House, I am sure. The hon. Gentleman quoted Gibbon, and mentioned that during his eight years sojourn here he had never made a speech. No doubt, Gibbon was the recipient of the sort of advice which Sir Winston Churchill is reputed to have given to a new Member who sought the advice of that great man about when he should make his maiden speech. It is said that the new Member was astonished to receive the advice, "Never, Sir", and that, when he asked for an explanation, Sir Winston replied, "Better that your fellow Members ask, 'Why does not he speak?', than, 'Why does he?'." [Laughter.] That sort of advice or stricture could never be given to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West, but it might have explained Gibbon's silence.
I was greatly struck yesterday by the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), when, speaking proudly after his 50 years of experience in the trade union movement, he referred to the trade unions as one of the great estates of the realm. One recalls that Sir Winston Churchill once described the trade unions as the fourth estate. Yet even as the right hon. Gentleman was speaking on that theme, I could not help reflecting on how extremely conservative and how resistant to change the great estates of the realm always are.
Would the Monarchy, for example, have changed but for the barons at Runnymede or but for what was done by Pym and Hampden in this House? Of course not. The Monarchy always wanted its power to remain absolute. What of the Church? It was always in-

tent on keeping its power, until that power was eroded by the action of Parliament. Parliament itself was always resistant to change until it was forced to change by pressures from outside, pressures which brought about the great Reform Bills and enlarged the franchise. In this century, there was a tremendous battle with the other place until it surrendered its power to the representatives of the people in the Commons.
The trade unions are no different from any of the other great estates of the realm. They do not want their power to be touched or interfered with in any way. They are as conservative and as resistant to change as any of their predecessors in the great and proud rôle which they have in our community.
I am not, therefore, impressed by the argument that there is no room for the Legislature to intervene on trade union matters. Far from it. The trade unions themselves are the child of this House. They have no legal powers or rights save the powers and rights given to them by the House. The situation is the same on the other side of industry where we are concerned with corporate power. The limited company is itself a creation of the law; its powers are controlled and restricted by the Companies Acts, which are revised from time to time. The power of companies to conspire together in restrictive practices is subject to legal sanction under an Act passed by the House. It is right, therefore, for the House of Commons from time to time to look at the trade union law and see what change is necessary, for, inevitably, change must come from outside the trade union movement itself.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) made an eloquent and effective speech, the most effective speech we have heard. It was effective because it was emotional, and it was emotional because of his experience. I thought it a fine parliamentary performance. I sympathised with the view which the right hon. Gentleman expressed, that change ought to come from the inside and there is so much which the trade unions themselves could do. I think that that is right, but the point is that they do not do it.
In my view, the trouble with the Bill is that it has been oversold. For political reasons, this being an election year


and trade union reform having been an electioneering slogan, so many hon. Members opposite—not the Minister himself or the Solicitor-General, but the Tory backwoodsmen—have been selling the idea that there is a magic formula in the Bill to overcome much of our industrial troubles. In fact, there is not.
That part of the Bill about which there has been the greatest ballyhoo, that is, the part dealing with the legal enforcement of work contracts, is, in my view, the least effective part of it. I very much agreed with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Helfer) when he wound up last night. The hon. Gentleman's speech was in marked contrast to the opening speech of the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who attacked the Bill and evoked frightening thoughts of what might happen; of the whole panoply of the criminal law being brought to hear, and of people being sent to prison. I thought that that was nonsense. Much the more effective criticism came from the hon. Member for Walton when he said that the Bill, or that part of it, was likely to prove ineffective.
I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman said about the Clauses dealing with legal enforceability. It is difficult to find an effective sanction for that kind of approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) was right last week to direct attention to the penal provisions in the Act of 1875, repeated later in—I am not sure of the date—

Mr. Thorpe: 1919.

Mr. Hooson: I am much obliged—the Electricity Supply Act, 1919. Those penal provisions were not invoked during the General Strike, and they have not been invoked by the Minister recently, and rightly so. This shows how difficult it is to get people, as it were, to obey that sort of law and to apply that kind of sanction. In his heart of hearts, the Minister understands this, I am sure. I noticed that he nodded yesterday on one or two ocasions when I intervened on the question of effective sanctions behind these provisions as they stand, and I am certain that he will find it extremely difficult to enforce some of these agreements.
We are told that in this country our great problem, as opposed to that of

the United States, is the problem of the unofficial strike, not the official strike. The unofficial striker is breaking the law now. He breaks his contract of employment. He can be sued by his employer. Why should employers show great enthusiasm for taking him to court for breaking the law under the new Bill than they have shown under the present law?

Mr. Orme: There are to be special courts.

Mr. Hooson: I know the argument about special courts, but the great problem in taking a man to law, quite apart from the difficulties of litigation in any event, is that a long time passes between the point when the contract is broken and the point when the remedy is obtained. By the time one goes to court, whether it be an industrial court or any other, to seek a remedy, one has forgotten what the dispute was all about. This is why it is so difficult to apply the right kind of enforcement.
I believe that the Bill has been oversold in that there have been gross misstatements about the efficacy of this part of its provisions, and on the Labour benches there has been the grossest exaggeration of what this part of the Bill is designed to achieve.
In fact, it is not a pernicious Bill. The right hon. Member for Sowerby put his finger directly on the real point of opposition when lie said that what worried him was the authorship of it. "We cannot", he said, "accept a trade union Bill from a Tory Government". That was the burden of his speech, and, in the light of his background, I can understand it. But I cannot accept that as the right approach to legislation. From whatever side of the House it comes, we must judge legislation on its merits, not on the ancestry of its authors. It really beggars description to have a fine parliamentary performance from someone of the right hon. Gentleman's standing which, when one analyses it, comes down to the basic criticism, "We cannot trust the authors of the Bill. Although the Bill says one thing, we think it is designed to achieve another."
I have referred to what I regard as, in many ways, the worst aspect of the Bill, but I must now talk of other aspects. One of the results of the Bill may be to change the pattern of industrial disputes. We may have far more official strikes


and fewer unofficial strikes. I do not know whether sufficient thought has been given to this aspect. Another matter I find to criticise in the Bill is the 60-day cooling-off period. My experience in the United States, and I had some discussions about this recently, is that it has not been very effective. On the other hand it has to be said that the critic from the United States whose article was distributed by the Trades Union Congress regarded this provision as what he called "plus" despite the criticism of it. I do not think that this will be so in this country because the tradition of the United States is very different from ours.
I believe that two of the best members of the Government Front Bench had a large part to play in the handling of this Bill, namely, the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General. I was in the United States recently and by accident followed in the footsteps of the Solicitor-General. I discovered he had been there in the spring and had been making various contacts with certain people and had held discussions with a view to preparing a Bill of this kind. I accept from the Minister and the Solicitor-General that this is a serious attempt to deal with the great industrial problems of the country. I regret that he has taken so much of his model from the United States and so little from such countries as Sweden and Germany which, certainly in the post-war period, have had relatively fewer labour troubles than the United States.
My approach and that of my party to the whole problem with which we are concerned in this important Bill is markedly different from that expressed by the Front Bench opposite or the Opposition Front Bench. I do not accept that unofficial strikes invariably, as seems to be suggested, result from wild-cat action or irresponsible attitudes. There is a great deal of validity in the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton yesterday and the right hon. Member for Leeds, West that very often on the work floor an aggravating problem suddenly arises. There is no proper management procedure to deal with it. There is the abrasive effect of perhaps a headstrong management and possibly a headstrong shop steward. Nevertheless, there is more often than not a genuine reason for the start of a dispute. The dispute

is not dealt with quickly and it soon grows to be an unofficial strike.
I greatly regret that in this Bill, which is supposed to start putting our industrial relations on a better footing there is no kind of grievance procedure laid down to deal with the problems where they really arise, which is on the shop floor. The modern labour reform law which this Bill is supposed to represent is in marked contrast to the 1962 Act introduced in Germany where they recognised that the important relationship in industry is on the shop floor between employers as represented on the shop floor and the employee as he is doing his daily work on the shop floor. The Government have started at the wrong end of the scale.
Having made these general criticisms, I nevertheless think that, in the mood of the country at present, with the background of the failure of the trade unions to reform themselves, it is necessary for this House to have a prolonged look at labour relations, the kind of opportunity that we can only have when a Bill of this kind is presented and considered in great detail in Committee. This Bill has many valuable parts to it. The more valuable parts have had less publicity so far.

Mr. Skinner: Name them.

Mr. Hooson: I will tell the hon. Gentleman which are some of the valuable parts. Let me name one very important potential development, and this is the permanent Commission on Industrial Relations. Everyone in the House knows that we are dealing with the most sensitive matter in our community in industrial relations. There is no subject on which posturing and pontificating contribute less than on this subject. We are setting up procedures, but whether or not they will be effective will largely depend not on the procedures but on the skill of the people who are to use them. That skill does not come overnight, but it is likely to come through such a Commission. This is a long-term matter and it could make the most valuable contribution to relations in British industry.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman concede that an indisputable factor required for this Commission to work is the co-operation of the


trade unions? Does not this Bill deny that type of co-operation?

Mr. Hooson: I do not agree with the hon. Member on this subject and with others who say that this will never get off the ground. In three years' time this Bill will be less controversial than our decision last week on British Standard Time.

Mr. Orme: You must be joking.

Mr. Hooson: I sometimes am in the habit of joking, but I am not joking when I venture this opinion. I believe this because the fears of the trade unions have been over-stated. The real contribution of the Bill will be in the long term. Another provision which could be of the greatest value is the code of industrial conduct. I belong to one of the oldest-established trade unions in the country. I am a member of the Bar.

Mr. Orme: Closed shop.

Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr Tydvil): It is not a trade union.

Mr. Hooson: If hon. Members would like to qualify for the Bar we would be delighted to welcome them.

Mr. Orme: What about solicitors?

Mr. Hooson: They have The Law Society. However, I said that I was a member of one of the oldest trade unions in the country. It is a trade union and because it has a monopoly position it has to have very strict standards and a code of conduct which is strictly enforced. If a person wants a privileged position in society, and sometimes it is necessary to have it, there must be, whether by law or otherwise, a code of conduct laid down. Every good trade unionist would agree on this point. If any trade union, whether the Bar Council or any other, is in conflict with the public interest and this House then this House must be paramount. If it applies to the professional bodies in this country it equally applies to trade unions too.
The code of industrial conduct could be most beneficial. On the other hand, it could he a series of platitudes, unexceptional and unenforceable, and that is what codes sometimes tend to be. But if great thought is brought to bear on it, the code

of industrial conduct should be another valuable contribution to the Bill.
I intend, and I have so advised my hon. Friends, to vote for the Bill on Second Reading.

Mr. Russell Kerr: That is Liberalism.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member is in no position to talk about Liberalism. He does not know anything about it. This Bill needs to be considered in depth. There are many parts of it about which I have great reservations but there are many parts which could be of great value. I hope that the combined wisdom and experience of this House is brought to bear upon it. Whatever its origin, whatever its authorship, it is important that this House should bring its vast combined wisdom and experience to bear on it and I hope that the Minister meant what he said yesterday when he invited Amendments and suggestions for improving or changing the Bill. The Government cannot afford to be dogmatic about it. It is important from the country's point of view that we get the right answer. The country is certainly in the mood for a Bill of this kind, but it is equally and more important that the answers that eventually go from this House should be the right ones.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Stokes.

Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order. The tradition of the trade union-sponsored Members of the House is a long and honourable one, Mr. Speaker, and it so happens that the biggest sponsored group is that of the Transport and General Workers' Union, which correspondingly also happens to be Britain's biggest trade union. I feel that there is, therefore, a need for the voice of that trade union to be heard in debates of this kind. I therefore respectfully draw this matter to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and seek your guidance about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question of selection of speakers is the very difficult task that is given to Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker is aware that many trade unionists wish to speak in the debate. Mr. Stokes.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. John Stokes: As a true blue Tory, I listened with the greatest enjoyment to the spen-did speech which we have heard from the gallant representative of the Liberal Party, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). One thing which it proves is that perhaps today the Liberal Party is more up to date than the Labour Party.
I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, that you have allowed me to take part in this debate, because I have spent 25 years in industry, first in two of the greatest companies in the country—I.C.I. and Courtaulds—and latterly as a mangement consultant dealing with personnel affairs on my own account. Of the many personnel managers whom I meet from time to time, very few indeed are opposed to the Bill.
I should like to start by recommending some of the less controversial aspects of the Bill. I am sure that one general benefit from it will be to highlight to everybody the importance of human relations in industry, because too often many people tend to think that better organisation and methods, more expertise and the latest techniques and systems are the answer to company problems. In my submission, they are not. It is the men who matter and, in particular, the men at the top.
Another essential factor in good relations is, as the Bill states, to encourage good communications by employers disclosing information to workpeople. This is something which, even today, some large firms in industry still find exceedingly difficult. This is perhaps an aspect in which industry could turn to the Forces, where young officers are taught very early on to put their men in the picture. In particular, the foreman, who is in a sense the n.c.o. of industry, should be given much more information, a better office and better facilities, because he is the man who is dealing with the first-line troops.
I speak as someone who goes into several factories every month and I think that there is sometimes a misunderstanding in the country about workpeople and what they do. I seldom find factories where workpeople are not working hard. There are, of course, black spots in cer-

tain industries, but most people do a good day's work in their factory and workplace. It is, however, up to management, in collaboration with the trade unions, to work out policies for more effective work. I believe that in the years to come, the Bill will support that.
We aim for higher productivity, about which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke earlier today, but productivity alone is not everything. People must be interested in what they are doing and be involved. That, again, is a task for management. I welcome in the Bill the proposals to safeguard employees from the actions of those who might lead them away from their duties. I do not subscribe to the view that subversion starts trouble, but sometimes subversion feeds on trouble when it is already there. Sometimes, both management and unions have to appeal direct to the rank and file over the heads of those who are irregularly and temporarily leading them badly.
The Bill is very clear on a man's right to decide whether to join a union. In future years, this problem is likely to occur more often with the staff of a company than with the workpeople, because we have seen in recent years a very large increase in staff unions. It is difficult to generalise—much depends on local circumstances—but, in the main, I am a strong supporter of workpeople on the shop floor being strongly unionised. I am not, however, generally speaking, a supporter of all staff people being unionised in the same way and, in particular, belonging to the same union. Their needs are different.
I welcome the new periods of notice specified in the Bill for employees. I felt that it was absurd and unfair that, until recently, a typist, for instance, because she was on the staff, was entitled to three weeks' holiday and often to a long period of sick pay, while a charge-hand or senior workman with many years' service would, perhaps, be on a week's pay with no sick pay entitlement.
One feature of the Bill which, to my knowledge, has not been touched upon from either side of the House is the overlap of the Bill with race relations legislation. I know that this is a dangerous and difficult topic, but I fear—and I speak from experience—that


already, in some circumstances, the existing race relations legislation can prejudice the rights of natives of this country as compared with those who have come from overseas. This factor must be carefully looked into.
The Bill is particularly relevant when we have seen in recent years the tendency of certain unions to abuse the strength of their position. As a practising industrialist, I sincerely believe that the Bill will strengthen leadership in the unions—and all good managements wish to face a strong and well-organised union.
Employers' associations have scarcely been mentioned. I believe that they have a great deal to do to make themselves more effective. Their members should take a more active interest in their activities, and their public relations in particular fall far short of those of the unions.
In conclusion, I return to my original theme that it is management, and management alone, which can ensure good industrial relations. I believe that the Bill will set out the framework. The rest is up to all those who work in industry.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Stokes) spoke in remarkably non-controversial style, possibly because he was not a maiden speaker. Today we have heard one maiden speaker after another on the benches opposite making blistering attacks on the trade union movement and on the Opposition, always preceded by an avowal that they would not be controversial and leaving us wondering what on earth they will be like as orators when they loose their restraints and become controversial. The hon. Gentleman said a great deal with which I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House agreed. I wish that I could feel that my speech will be as uncontroversial as his, but I feel obliged to register a disagreement with the attitude to the Bill of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
Of course, many criticisms can be made about the Bill. It is complicated. It may well not work in its major provision. It is only partly relevant to the current prob-

lems which plague us. If legislation is needed in this field, as I think it is, the Conservative Party is not the organisation one would choose to introduce and implement it, for all the reasons admirably given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).
On the other hand, there is a real problem. The public knows that there is a real problem. My right hon. Friends stated over and over again last year that there was a real problem. At the same time there are some good things in the Bill. I wish very much that my right hon. Friends had tabled a reasoned Amendment and set out to improve the Bill in Committee. I cannot understand or support the violent, unrestrained and partisan attacks made on the Bill by my right hon. Friends. To describe it as a monstrous tyranny which takes us back over half a century, as one of my right hon. Friends did, or as a blackleg's charter does not seem to me appropriate. It is dangerous and likely to mislead the public about the Labour Party's true attitude in this important field.
I wonder whether it is right to say, "No matter what happens, no matter how the Bill works or does not work, we will repeal it if we get the chance." I wonder whether that is wise. It may well be that when we return to office, as we shall do in due course, we shall want to repeal the Bill. But I wonder whether it is wise to close the option between repealing the Bill and amending it and to say, "If we are returned to power we shall not amend the Bill but repeal it completely".
I was glad when my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby made clear that the pledge about repeal is conditional on our successfully co-operating with the trade union movement in producing a new, constructive alternative to the Bill. I am glad that the unconditional statement of repeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) last night is apparently not a true statement of the Labour Party's position. Further, I assume that the statement which my hon. Friend made in the debate on 26th November does not represent the position of the party. He said:
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn made it clear that we would oppose this Measure root and branch and that, if it should come on into operation, we would destroy it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1970; Vol. 807, c. 733.]


That goes much further than the pledge of repeal. It is not only an unconditional statement; it hints at direct action against the Bill if it comes into operation. I am glad to have had the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sower-by that that is not the position adopted by my party.
I find it difficult to understand the extreme attitude of my right hon. Friends. I do not think that it is the view of my constituents. I do not believe that it is the view of the Labour voters who sent me to this place. It gives a dangerously misleading impression of the Labour Party's relations with the trade unions. We have to be a little careful in our statements to the public, bearing in mind our close partnership and our many ties, including financial ties, with the trade unions. I think that our party would be wise to try to avoid giving a misleading impression about our rôle in this field.
Finally, this attitude contrasts so sharply with the attitude of my right hon. Friends quite recently when they were the Ministers responsible. We all know that from time to time politicians have to eat their words. It is one of the drawbacks of our profession. Like our low pay, it is one of the things we cannot avoid. It is no great disgrace to eat one's words on a small matter, or even on a big matter, provided a decent interval of time has elapsed between one's avowal of conviction in one direction and changing it to an avowal of conviction in the other direction. But when one eats one's words on a major matter of national importance with the minimal interval, the politician concerned loses credibility when it comes to discussing the subject in question.
We all know that there were differences between "In Place of Strife" and this Bill. But there were also remarkable similarities. Both accepted the principle that the law must be invoked to check unofficial strikes. "In Place of Strife" provided for the fining of unofficial strikers. I recall one or two of my right hon. Friends speaking in favour of the attachment of wages for this purpose. At that time I thought—and I am sure that I was right—that my right hon. Friends were facing up to a very serious

national problem with great courage and complete conviction. I agreed with what they said. I spoke in my constituency and on television in favour of the stand which they were taking. Now tonight they invite me, with a three-line whip, to change my mind.
But I have not changed my mind. Why should we change our minds compared with the position a year ago? Has the problem got better? On the contrary, it has got worse. Has the alternative policy, the solemn and binding undertaking, succeeded? It may have helped marginally, but it has certainly not begun to solve the problem. Or is the argument simply that since then we have become the Opposition and we can now take a different and more relaxed view of the national interest? That is not an argument which should weigh with us.
I see no reasonable excuse for this change of front. It is not good enough to declare one year that the national interest imperatively demands all-out support for "In Place of Strife" and the next year that the national interest imperatively demands the destruction of the very similar Industrial Relations Bill. This is simply playing party games, and I think that the public is growing sick of it.
Then there is the question of public opinion. We do not need public opinion polls to tell us that the great majority—

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Mr. Sydney Bidwell(Southall) rose—

Mr. Mayhew: —of the public, including the majority of members of trade unions, are deeply convinced, not only that unofficial strikes are wrong—that goes without saying—[Interruption.] Let me take the public opinion polls. If my hon. Friends say that the public is not overwhelmingly in favour of action to stop unofficial strikes, they are quite wrong. I am not saying whether it is right or wrong; I am talking about public opinion. I admit that public opinion polls can be 5 or 10 per cent. wrong, but anyone who studies the polls and gets outside Westminster and speaks in public in his constituency knows that the overwhelming majority of the public and the majority of members of trade unions are deeply disturbed by the excessive growth of power in the trade unions and the use made of that power from time to time, and want the law to be brought in


to curb that power. I am not saying that the public is right; I am talking about the attitude which I feel it is wise for my party to adopt on the whole question of industrial relations. If we utterly ignore the public, we could get into great difficulties, and I urge my hon. Friends to take this argument seriously.
Is the public wrong about the growth of power of the trade unions and its occasional misuse? The Labour Party must face this question. It is no good just remembering the good times when the partnership between the party and the unions was so easy. When the Labour Representation Committee was founded 70 years ago, and when the partnership between our party and the trade unions began, there were no problems, because the demands of the unions and the demands of the people were identical. The demand of the trade unions for a living wage was the major need of the people, and it was the partnership between our party and the trade union movement which was more responsible than anything else for the increase in the living standards and the welfare of the people.
We must recognise that today it is different. The partnership is not, and cannot be, as straightforward and as easy as it was. The first change is that the demand of a trade union for higher wages is no longer automatically the need of the public as a whole. It used to be, but today the demand of a trade union for higher wages often conflicts with the need of the public for lower prices. Today the public think and act much less as producers earning wages and salaries, as they did in the old days, than as consumers, as people who are interested in prices, in the rates of mortgages, in rates and taxes. Of course this makes it different, because it is no longer true that those whom we represent are necessarily served by the demands of trade unions. It is no good just getting hot about this problem; we must face it and see what we can do about it.
There is another change which is a great embarrassment to this partnership. The nature and effect of the strike have changed in the last 70 years. What used to be a simple action which hurt the employer, and, indeed, the employed, is now a quite different social phenomenon, as we have seen in recent days. It is unrecognisably different and full of peril

for the political organisation which is affiliated to the union that takes this action. We cannot laugh this off.

Miss Bernadette Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mayhew: I would prefer not to.

Miss Devlin: May I make one simple proposition to the hon. Member? In drawing the differences between the existing party and party leadership and the unions, he is possibly missing the fundamental fact not that the unions do not represent and continue to represent the mass of the people but that the party leadership has sold out the masses of the working people, because still only 7 per cent. of the people own 84 per cent. of the private wealth of the country, and that is why there is not enough money to go round.

Mr. Mayhew: I am not wholly on the same wavelength as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). I remind her that the last time we spoke together in public we spoke on the same side, and won a notable victory in another place.
There has been another change in the trade union movement which is almost as difficult for us as the two other changes. The political views—I am speaking very frankly—of trade union activities and some trade union leaders diverge a great deal more than they used to from the views of the party and the public. We are dealing in some instances with trade union leaders who have got to the job and keep themselves there thanks to extremist political support. I would hope that we were able to talk frankly about this, as it is of the greatest importance.

Mr. Skinner: Who are these people? Name them.

Mr. Mayhew: I will not name them.

Mr. Skinner: Why not?

Mr. Mayhew: I will state what is common knowledge, that a number of trade union leaders today are no longer the Ernest Bevin type, the Sam Watson type or the Tom Williamson type. They are people whose views diverge much more from our party's views, and therefore, they present us with a problem.
To sum up, I maintain that although the Bill has shortcomings—and I agree


with a number of complaints that have been made—there is great danger to the party if we simply react to the Bill as though nothing has happened between the trade unions and the Labour Party over the last 70 years, as though no problem faced us, as though we can go on un-discriminatingly backing a movement that has changed a great deal in the last 70 years.
The attitude that my right hon. Friends have taken to the Bill is dangerously misleading. They should not be ashamed of the stand which they made last year on this issue. They should recognise that there is a serious problem here, about which something needs to be done, and about which the public expects something to be done, and that we do no good to the party by wild partisan denunciations of the Bill. We should have had a reasoned Amendment, and we should make a constructive attempt to improve the Bill in the national interest.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: For some hours I have been wondering which telling phrase 1 might start with if I were fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Comments were made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite with which I so profoundly disagreed that I hardly know how not to follow them. Then came the interesting and provocative speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who, if I may respectfully say so, raised some much more interesting points for discussion than had been raised before, and I was tempted to follow him. The one thing which I never expected was that 1 should be following a speech such as that made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) with which I so wholeheartedly agree. In these circumstances, the only thing I can do is to abandon my preconceived beginnings and to limit myself to a brief contribution in that one area of the matter in which I can claim to have a little experience.
The reason I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking in this debate is that in the course of the discussions on this matter ever since the Consultative Document was published and, more particularly, since publication of the Bill, there has been too much huffing and

puffing about the law and lawyers in general. Most of it has been grossly misconceived. It is time that a little straightening out was done by at least one lawyer. I am glad I have that opportunity because I think I can fairly claim to have had some special experience in the field of the reform of the law and in seeing whether such reform can assist in resolving some of the problems which have arisen in industrial relations in recent years.
In 1965 I had the honour to form a committee under the chairmanship of the late Sir John Hobson, whom most people in the House will remember with affection as a colleague for whom we had great respect. That committee was set up by the Inns of Court Conservative and Unionist Society and, contrary to what is said in this House about lawyers wishing to take over this whole matter, that committee's terms of reference were to consider whether any, and if so what, changes might be recommended in the law relating to industrial relations which might assist all the other possible methods for improving industrial relations.
That committee, of which the then Solicitor-General was a member, produced a pamphlet called, "Trade Unions for Tomorrow", which was a print of written evidence submitted to the Donovan Commission. I had the privilege of attending, together with Sir John Hobson, the Solicitor-General, and Mr. Alan Campbell Counsel to give oral evidence on that document to the Royal Commission. In passing, may I add that I am one of the few lawyers in this country who have been to the United States to see what happens there in the industrial courts. A great deal is said both inside and outside the House about what happens in the United States, but I have sat in the National Labour Relations Courts in the States to see what it all about.
As a result of my experience, I am 100 per cent. with the Government in the objectives which they seek to achieve in this Bill.
There is, of course, great room for difference in detail and as to methods. I have been pursuing some of those differences of methods with my right hon. Friend. There is room for difference of opinion and discussion on the meaning


and effect of some parts of the Bill. The Bill is in parts technical and difficult to understand. There is plenty of scope for trying to work out between ourselves areas of doubt and in seeking to resolve them.
I apprehend that, whatever political differences there may be across the Floor of the House, lawyers in the House will be united in the objective that, whatever Bill is enacted, we want to see it contain the minimum number of ambiguities. All lawyers in the House are tired of seeing legislation pass out of the House containing so many ambiguities that it brings the law into disrepute. The one thing for which there is no excuse is the sort of line that was frequently pursued in the debate yesterday, a line which has been pursued by other people in public, epitomised by the hon. Gentleman who said that the Bill means that negotiation will be replaced by litigation. There is no room for extravagant statements of that kind—for the fire and fury and froth of the kind we heard from the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) today—about the effect in law of the Bill. It is such nonsense that one looks for some kind of explanation of how people can say these things.
I can only think that such statements must be based on one of two assumptions, each of which is as false as the other. It appears that some people feel that there is an unidentified group of lawyers who feel that they and the law can solve everybody's problems and want to take them over. I assure anybody who thinks in that way that no such body of lawyers is known to me, and I do not believe it exists.
The attitude of the lawyers is typified in a passage which I shall quote from "Trade Unions for Tomorrow", which is as follows:
We recognise that the legal framework within which management and employees, trade unions and employers' associations, must work is only part of the problem. In the ultimate analysis, the spirit and good intentions, the vision and the effort, the failings and inadequacies, the stupidities and fears both of management and of employees and of their representative institutions, are infinitely more important than the legal framework within which they work, whatever it may be.
This is one of the few public pronouncements I know which was made entirely

by lawyers. They included the Solicitor-General, Sir John Hobson, Sir Lionel Heald and I myself. I believe that is far more representative of the attitude of lawyers to this problem, namely, to ask, "what contribution can the law make to supplement the efforts of everybody to bring sense into this field where there is so much nonsense at the moment?"
Is it not as plain as a pikestaff that this is what the Bill sets out to do: to supplement all the other means which are already available, if people wish to use them, to avoid a conflict in a number of ways. Two of these reforms involve (a) making a long-overdue attempt to set out clearly the rights and obligations of the various parties who have a part to play in this matter and, (b) by way of last resort or long-stop, to provide means of resolving disputes if none of the other means available is effective.
This will of course mean that in some respects people will need the assistance of lawyers, but surely there is nobody in this House who really believes that litigation and legal advice is to take the place of negotiation. Surely every single person must believe that everybody concerned to find settlements to the difficulties which arise will still seek to do so by every negotiating means that is available. There are so many other things which can and must contribute to restoring a more favourable climate. A return to a better sense of values than we saw last week might do more than all the legal framework can do. A clearer realisation that all sections of the community are so inter-dependent that one section cannot any longer hold another section to ransom would do as much as any framework of law could do.
I am sure that all hon. Members here hope that such remedies provided by the Bill will not be taken as the last word and that everybody who is concerned will make the same sort of vigorous effort as is being made in the United States to make available more effective arbitration procedures. Arbitration procedures have the great benefit that they are carried out entirely by and with the agreement of the parties. In the United States I had unqualified admiration for the strides which have been made by the Association of Arbitrators and others in


making available quick and effective means for resolving disputes by arbitration.
I turn now to the second assumption which seems to be being made which I think is as false as the first. The belief seems to be that the minute the Bill has been passed there will be a flood of litigation arising out of and relating to industrial matters. I have not yet heard anybody who puts forward that argument condescend to any particulars of whence this flood is said to come.
There may well be a great increase in litigation in one sphere. There may well be a large number of claims for alleged unfair dismissal. But what right hon. or hon. Gentleman opposite would complain about that? The Bill is introducing into this country for the first time a remedy and compensation for the man who can fairly and rightly claim that he has been unfairly dismissed.

Mr. Ray Carter: Mr. Ray Carter(Birmingham, Northfield) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. It is impossible for an hon. Member to speak against a conversational background of noise. It is very unfair to hon. Members who have sat here for two whole days in the hope of speaking, many of whom I still hope it will be possible to call in the last hour of the debate. Mr. Percival.

Mr. Carter: The hon. and learned Gentleman raises the subject of unfair dismissal. If this is such a new approach to industrial relations, if we are to get increased freedom for the worker, why cannot that principle be extended to approximately 5 million workers who work in establishments where four people or less are employed?

Mr. Percival: The hon. Gentleman should not come into the House at the last moment and raise a technical point like that in the middle of a question of substance. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that in introducing a new procedure like this one must make sure that the procedures can be worked. I understand that it is my right hon. Friend's intention to make this remedy available in the first instance to a very wide area of people and then, as the system is got

working, if there is a case for extending it more widely, to do so.
I return to my general theme—

Mr. Roy Hughes: Mr. Roy Hughes rose—

Mr. Percival: I will not give way. I ask those who say that the Bill will substitute litigation for negotiation and that it will be followed by a flood of litigation: who will indulge in all this litigation? I think that it is pie in the sky. All this huffing and puffing about the law and lawyers in general is in substitution for detailed consideration of the contents of the Bill. There is so much in it which calls for discussion. For instance, what a joy it will be when we get some serious discussion of this new concept of unfair industrial practice. There is much to discuss in those parts of the Bill which create this new cause of action, the way that it is to be dealt with, and the remedies available.
There might even be grounds for discussing a new name in place of the present one which is 24 letters long. We might perhaps find a four-letter word for it like—[interruption.] I thought perhaps that hon. Gentlemen opposite might have some suggestions but that is not what I have in mind. I am thinking of a word like "tort", which simply means a wrongdoing, another nice, short word like that so easy to use.
There are many points involved in those parts of the Bill which introduce this concept about which we could have a useful discussion, but about which we are not having a useful discussion because of all this huffing and puffing about the law and lawyers in general.
I was glad that at least some hon. Members referred to the agency shop. I was surprised to hear such strictures as these were about that, because those who profess to know about the American system would, I thought, have known that in Canada and America the agency shop concept has been introduced fairly recently. They use the Rand formula in Canada, and it is giving some satisfaction there.
I do not propose to go further into those matters partly because of the time, partly because we shall have ample opportunity to develop them in Committee, and partly because I want to trespass on the time of the House to make one other general point. I think that the drafting


of the Bill is quite magnificent. The more one reads it—at the moment I am inclined to think that there are perhaps more opinions floating about than there are people who have read it—the more one is amazed—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Percival: Hon. Gentlemen may sneer. When they get down to reading the Bill, they may agree with my whole sentence. The more one reads the Bill the more one is amazed how the draftsman has married all the different parts into one another. It represents a complete, coherent, cohesive system for providing as long-stops remedies for resolving difficulties which at the moment seem so often to be intractable. To do that it is necessary to have some fairly complicated and technical law, and, of course, there will be a part for lawyers to play in that. But why is that such a bad thing? Would anybody thinking of building a bridge say, "We will not have any engineers to help in building it"?
The lawyers will have a part to play in implementing the Bill. Parties will want to know their rights. Judges will need assistance. But let hon. Gentlemen not forget that lawyers are never employed unless their services are required and thought to be useful. No lawyer will come into this unless someone wishes his assistance. Surely it is plain commonsense.
That is the keynote on which I want to end. Can we not all now start to approach the Bill with a little more commonsense and in a rather more workmanlike way than has been the case thus far? Is it not possible for those who have strong personal prejudices, whether they be anti-capitalist or anti-lawyer, to drop those prejudices? Is it not possible for the House at last to get down to a joint effort, pooling all the experience of hon. Members on both sides to produce the most workmanlike scheme than we can? That is what the public wants, without any doubt. Surely, there is nothing finer that we could do in this House than to serve it, the public, by making that joint effort.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I listened very intently to the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). I began to be interested in

his second sentence, but by the time he finished he had me as confused as a cross-eyed kitten. I only hope that when I read his speech in the morning it will give me something more than I could get out of it tonight.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the more we read the Bill the more we became amazed. I agree with him. I have read it four or five times, and it is the biggest maze I know. We are having a two-day debate and there have been constant instances of differences of opinion between hon. and learned Members on both sides on the legal interpretation not just of Clauses but of subsections. We had a long and sustained argument last night involving four lawyers—the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams). They all tried to give interpretations of Clauses 32 to 40, and we had four lawyers and four different opinions. That is one of our difficulties in examining a Bill like this.
Even the language relating to the trade unions and the ordinary man in the factory and shop stewards is very imprecise, making it a lawyers' paradise. But I do not want to repeat all the arguments about the difficulties which everybody will get into, thus giving the lawyers additional remuneration.
I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister of State, Department of Employment, who I assume will reply—

Mrs. Renee Short: We never get replies.

Mr. Loughlin: I should like to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to Clause 6(1) which says:
it shall be an unfair industrial practice for any person (including any trade union or other organisation of workers or any official of a trade union or of such an organisation)—

(a) by calling, organising, procuring or financing a strike, or threatening to do so …"
The Clause also refers to "inducing", which appears in Clause after Clause. Unless there is a clear definition relating to the actions of individuals in industry,


every trade unionist and trade union official will be inhibited when considering his job in industry, because he will have no idea of the words which might be construed as constituting an offence under the Bill in certain circumstances.
This is not what industrial relations are about. Industrial problems cannot be solved on the basis of legislation or creating a situation in which the people involved are so ignorant of what offence they might commit that they are completely inhibited in pursuing their side of industrial relations. The Bill will produce such a situation. I do not believe that it will make the slightest contribution to future industrial relations. The solution of industrial problems, whether we like it or not, requires a great deal of patience. We must create an atmosphere of confidence on both sides of industry and be prepared to settle our negotiations either on the shop floor or at the central negotiating table.
The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Stokes) struck the right note when he talked about the place of the foreman on the factory floor. One of the biggest weaknesses in British industry—not in all parts, but in large sectors—is the failure of management to see the real significance of first- and second-line supervision. I have been fortunate; I have been on both sides of the negotiating table. I was in management before I became a trade union official.
I have had experience of the appointment of chargehands in what I consider to be a key post in good industrial relations. A chargehand should have qualities of leadership that will enable him to solve some of the immediate problems as they arise. He must be trained, but large parts of British industry attach no importance to the leadership quality of chargehands or foremen. They get the fellow who will take the job as promotion, even though he may earn less money than he would on the benches. He will possibly be the fourth choice, anyway. We must remember the significance of individuals.
The Bill will not work, and I am not particularly bothered about it. Being as charitable as I can, I believe that this is a naked attack upon the trade union movement. Hon. Gentlemen opposite can

wrap it up as much as they like, but it reflects the Prime Minister's stated intention in his Carshalton speech many months ago to cut the unions down to size. I do not believe the intention is to deal with industrial relations at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), who has again left the Chamber—he has not been here very long either—talked about modern trade union officials as "wild men". If there are any wild men on the T.U.C., they will oppose the Bill; but the Bill is opposed by every trade union official who is a member of the T.U.C. I am a member of U.S.D.A.W., and no one in his right senses would accuse Alf Allen. who is a member of the T.U.C., of being a wild man, a Communist, a Maoist or any other "-ist" that people find under beds. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or a Tory."] He is certainly not a Tory. He is a responsible trade union official and a man whose sole concern is defending the interests of his members. He opposes the Bill as strongly as any Leftist official. The Bill will not work: that is the nub of the issue.
Hon. Members opposite have some weird ideas, in relation to the closed shop, about what goes on in industry. Does the Minister of State believe that he can stop the pre-entry closed shop? He will not. If there is a pre-entry closed shop, anyone who does not want to join will be told by a shop steward or someone else that he must. Then all the procedures will be put into effect against the man who challenged this paragon of virtue, whose sole virtue is that he does not want to pay his 1s. 2d. a week, and the shop steward might then have to pay a fine or compensation. The net effect is a fine. The man will be told that he does not have to join the union, and the employer, having invoked all the procedures, will be very happy. But does that man, having been given the right to work in that establishment, return? Of course not, because as soon as he did, someone else would tell him that he had to join the union. Having been put to the expense and difficulty in the first place the employer will not dare do it again.
I have another question relating specifically to my union. We have membership in the co-operative societies, which are democratically controlled. Many of their boards of management agree at an annual


meeting to recommend to the shareholders that a condition of employment shall be that the person concerned shall be a member of his appropriate trade union. The workpeople themselves agree on a closed shop. Will the Government then say that, despite the employer and the workpeople having decided democratically, there will be no closed shop?
We have heard about the agency shop, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) spoke yesterday about building sites. Having been at the Ministry of Public Building and Works for 18 months, I know something about this. On a £2 million project, the first site contractor could get 20 or 30 people together and say that he did not want a closed shop. Although 1,000 people might eventually be employed there, those 20 could determine the matter, which would mean that for two years there could be no agency shop there. In other words, the Bill would cripple the trade union movement in the building industry. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have a responsibility for refusing to put into effect the legislation to which they agreed in four Committee meetings just before the General Election which would have dealt with those who tried to evade their responsibilities in that industry.
The Bill is conceived in a spirit of vindictiveness, spite and ignorance. I do not believe that right hon. Gentlemen opposite think it will make any difference to industrial relations. They are concerned primarily to smash the unions, and all their protestations to the contrary cut no ice with me.
We will do whatever we possibly can to ensure that this Bill never gets on to the Statute Book. We are taking this action not because we think the Measure will work—indeed, we sincerely believe that it will not work at all—but because the importation of an American system into our industrial relations is not what we want to see in the circumstances which apply here. We will fight hon. Gentlemen opposite on the issue that they are concerned primarily with attacking the trade unions. We will defend the trade unions.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. David James: I trust that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) will forgive

me if I do not pursue the line which he followed. His suggestion that we are engaged in union-bashing is too peurile to warrant further argument or discussion.
On the other hand, I am pleased to be speaking following the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) because he made a courageous speech. Many of his remarks came far more appropriately from the benches opposite than they would have come from these benches.
I was also interested in, and pleased to hear, the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). If he were in his place I am sure that he would welcome my saying that I will happily keep a seat warm on this side of the House, where he will always be welcome.
I have listened to all but about five minutes of this debate. I was particularly interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride). I was sorry, however, that he did not pay the customary tributes to the immediately preceding maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler). I am glad in a way that he did not because it gives me an opportunity to do so, and I will tell hon. Members why.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth is, of course, the son of the former Rab Butler, and my father was his P.P.S. for 13 years. There has been a long association between the Butler family and this House, and I am glad to see that our new hon. Friend has inherited many of his father's persuasive attributes.
I take issue with the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) over one point. He said that he did not give a hoot about our views because he claimed that my hon. Friends were so self-evidently in bad faith that it was not worth considering what we had to say. I was surprised that anybody with his well know degree of tolerance and intelligence should be prepared to make that type of imputation against all hon. Members on one side of the House. It was similar to the suggestion made last night, rather incautiously, by an hon. Member who forgot that he was addressing the Chair, and asked Mr. Speaker whether he had ever worked in the construction industry, to which Mr. Speaker said that he had.
The general implication on the part of many hon. Gentlemen opposite is that ail Conservative hon. Members are starry-eyed and steely-jawed industrialists—they claim that we are both things at the same time—who have never been outside the board room. In fact, I began work, and manual work, for 10s. a month and was a deck hand on a North Sea trawler for a considerable time. I trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite accept that I have had experience on both sides of the industrial fence.
Indeed, to suggest that anybody could have gone through the last war and still lack human sympathy and be incapable of discussing these matters in a sympathetic manner is to insult the intelligence of the House. I will, therefore, assume that we are entitled to discuss this matter with hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, in any event, do not have a monopoly on all good will and knowledge on this subject.
I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite listened to Alistair Cooke's "Letter from America" on the radio on Saturday night. His letters are always worth hearing. He drew attention to the irony that when the 1935 Wagner Act was introduced it contained many of the provisions which we are proposing to introduce now. Indeed, that measure was held to be a triumph for the trade union movement.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: So it was.

Mr. James: I agree, and in precisely the same way the measure which we are introducing will be a triumph. [Interruption.] I admit that in an intervention last night in the remarks of the hon. Member for Walton I was wrong. He was right to say that it was the Taft-Hartley legislation which subsequently permitted the American Government to end a crippling national strike within 24 hours. This only goes to prove that it is no good saying that legislation which has been successfully applied overseas cannot have an impact in this country.
My main concern tonight over the Bill is not only with its content but with the way in which we discuss it in that this should be a vindication for democracy and for this House. I was struck by

what Mr. Speaker said on the radio last Saturday morning. He said—I agree with him, though while he was referring to the last 20 years my experience is with the last 10—that this House has become more hard working, more democratic and, despite the deep differences between us, in many ways more friendly.
In discussing the brute realities of the outside world—of the hijack, the kidnap, the demo and the unofficial industrial action—I am concerned to ensure that we maintain the democratic principle that legislation in this country is passed by the House of Commons and is not subject to external pressure. We have knowledge, on the authority of no less a person than the former Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition, of a tightly-knit group of politically motivated men. We have had a similar confession by Lord Robens. [Interruption.] Indeed, it is common ground that the Communist Party of Great Britain and all the other associated extremist groups have been trying to make a dog's dinner of the Bill.

Mr. Heffer: It has not needed them to do that.

Mr. James: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not need any such assistance. In any event, it is not good enough, and I wish to expose what is happening because unless one does this sort of thing one is not doing one's job.
I want to suggest what I believe is likely to happen. On 12th January there will be a mass meeting of the T.U.C. at the Albert Hall which will be addressed by the Leader of the Opposition. No human being could conceivably object to that as being a proper and reasonable democratic procedure.
I wonder, however, whether many hon. Gentlemen opposite are aware that the Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions, a totally Communist-inspired body, is proposing to try to call a one-day general strike on that same day, riding on the backs of a legitimate T.U.C. protest. If the hon. Gentleman has time to talk to the Leader of the Opposition, I hope he will persuade him to condemn this type of extra-parliamentary pressure here and now, and not even wait until he arrives at the Albert Hall before doing so.
The next key date in the diary is the recall conference of the A.E.F. on 4th February in connection with the amalgamation of the spidermen and the draughtsmen. Hon. Members opposite may probably know that the general secretary of the spidermen, Ernie Marsden, has never made any bones of the fact that he is a Communist. This, once again, will be a Communist—

Mr. Paul B. Rose: Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Blackley) rose—

Mr. James: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) knows that if the hon. Member who is speaking does not give way he must resume his seat. He will also realise that time is getting very far advanced.

Mr. James: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is because time is getting so far advanced that I am trying to be quick, and so will not give way.
As I was saying, on 4th February there is to be this very explosive conference with considerable Communist influence, and the general objective at which those taking part are aiming is a general strike to try to deflect the will of Parliament.
Finally, on 7th February in Manchester there will be the Young Communist conference which has been inspired by lobbying at the T.U.C. conference in September last, and at which, once again, an attempt will be made to bring out the country in a general strike in defiance of what may well prove to be the wishes of Parliament.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have a very honourable record, and I wish to pay tribute to that record, in successfully preventing the extreme Left from taking charge of these matters, but I suggest to them that if this type of provocation goes on there is a very real danger of a Right-wing backlash, which I would deplore every bit as much as I would Left-wing extremism, and which one might find equally difficult to control. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, I make no bones at all about this. That being so, it is in the interests of both sides of the House that we keep discussion of the Bill at a low temperature; that we

insist on the principles and details being debated in the House, and do not permit any external pressure to be brought to bear from either the extreme Right or the extreme Left.

Mr. Rose: We agree with this, but since the hon. Gentleman has quoted Lord Robens he should refer to what Lord Robens recently said of the Bill:
It could in the present climate cause the downfall, within the unions, of the very elements who presently are struggling to keep to the generally practised 'rules' of industrial relations. Once they have disappeared, the militants who take their place will be interested neither in legal sanctions, nor the 'give and take' tradition.
It is precisely this Bill which will play into the hands of those militants.

Mr. James: I fully accept that point. This is the risk one is bound to run. There is a very real danger that by bringing forward the Bill in the climate of present opinion we may antagonise those very trade unionists for whom we have the very greatest respect. In this connection, since no one has in my hearing mentioned his name tonight, I must say that I only wish that we still had the benefit of the advice of my very old personal friend, Les Cannon. He was a close friend of mine 12 years ago when he was trying to oust Mr. Haxell from the E.T.U. I am only sorry that in these admittedly difficult decisions we have been deprived, at the age of 50, of probably the ablest trade union leader the country has had for a couple of decades.
The main burden of my plea is that it is encumbent on all of us on both sides who believe in parliamentary democracy not in any circumstances to countenance any illegitimate extra-parliamentary pressure. On both sides of the House we have a vested interest in seeing that the Bill is discussed here, and no doubt improved, because thereby, and thereby alone, lies the vindication of democracy.
It has been suggested by that very distinguished American anthropologist, Robert Ardrey, whose books "Territorial Imperative" and "Social Contract" are almost essential reading, that the reason for the widespread internal dissension in every country is the lack of any external threat. No doubt zoologically this is true. But I for one will not countenance the possibility of having a war


once every generation to maintain social cohesion.
I believe that Britain may be the only country which is sufficiently mature to be able to put through this type of legislation in a fully parliamentary manner without the type of pressure groups to which I have referred. I have full confidence that Mr. Speaker's view of the future of Parliament will prevail and that the rowdies, the demos, the hijackers and the other pressure groups outside Parliament will fail. But I expect the cooperation of colleagues on both sides of the House in ensuring that this happens.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The intellectual force of the speech made this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) is backed by the moral force which only those of us who have come through the trade union movement can understand and appreciate. The trade union movement is a cornerstone of British democracy. Struggles which took place in the past long before trade unions were thought of led to the formation of unions and laid a basis of democracy in Britain. Our democracy is unique amongst countries in Western Europe and North America.
In Britain working people can stand freely for Parliament and be elected because they have the support of a trade union and need not be backed by private finance, as must happen in many other countries.
Because the British trade union movement has a political force and will it is powerful. I agree that in many instances this can make it controversial. However, when the movement acts in industrial matters it does so from an industrial view-point. When it operates in the political field it is operating in a different field.
When the trade union movement evolved in Britain and the question of negotiations and agreements first arose, the concept of free collective bargaining was at the very basis of the movement's raison d'etre. The fact that the Bill will bring the law directly into the centre of collective bargaining on wages and on conditions in industry is what we are opposed to.
The Prime Minister said today that the law, in the shape of the 1875 and 1906 Acts, was already involved in industrial relations. The law now allows trade unions to operate freely under the cover of the law, not outside it, whereas the proposals in the Bill will bring the law directly into the centre of industrial relations.
Some of the lawyers' speeches make me fearful about what will happen in industrial relations. Yesterday the Minister was unable to answer a legal point and said that he would have to pass it to the lawyers. Does this mean that every one of the 185,000 shop stewards will have to be accompanied by a lawyer every time he goes to see the management? If so, a ludicrous situation will develop. It may lead to the parallel in this country of the American U.A.W., which is a formidable and powerful union; the building which houses its lawyers is larger than the building which houses the other union officials.
In speaking of agreements I am thinking in particular of those in the engineering industry. I am a sponsored Member by the A.E.F. and have worked the whole of my life, with the exception of my war service, in the engineering industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned, we operate under an agreement called the York Memorandum. It is interesting to look at its history. It was imposed upon the engineering unions at the time of the 1922 lockout, when the engineering unions in effect were defeated by the employers. That agreement canonised for British industry up to this day the basic tenet of managerial function. But it also introduced a measure of collective bargaining and a method of operating which was terribly unsatisfactory from the engineering unions' point of view, but which has, nevertheless, survived from 1922 to 1970. The engineering unions have operated that agreement, so that one cannot talk about responsible unions not carrying out agreements.
The engineering unions are now trying to negotiate a fresh agreement which they have almost reached. The president of the engineering employers gave his word to the negotiators six months ago that he did not wish this to become a legally binding agreement. But he has now gone back on his word and is insisting that a


clause be put in to make it legally binding on both sides. The engineering unions say, "We are not having this. If we believe in free collective bargaining, it is free collective bargaining", and they have given notice that the current agreement, the York Memorandum, be finished within one month's time. If this is done, we shall be left with no agreement within the industry. After that agreement is abolished we shall see how much work shop stewards and officials now do to maintain industrial peace.
When we consider the Bill we come to what the unions will do under such circumstances. We would have the unique position in British law where a contract which has not been agreed by both sides would be imposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) made this point crystal clear last night when he dealt with Clause 39. So much for the freedom of action at the present time.
Another central point is the question of non-unionists who are equated in the Bill with trade unionists. Many hon. Members opposite cannot understand how we are so incensed about non-unionists being equated with trade unionists. If they had worked on the shop floor and had combined to obtain better working conditions and wages, and had done this through persuasion and through an endeavour to get a strong organisation, they would often have seen some individual come along who wanted to accept all the benefits but not pay the subscriptions, and who, in many cases, through all sorts of means, had tried to break that organisation.
One or two hon. Members in maiden speeches yesterday spoke about the right of the non-unionists to work and the right of people to work alongside them. I put the argument the other way round. If the Bill is passed and if Clause 5 is implemented, one will find many establishments with non-unionists working but not with trade unionists working because there is nothing to compel them to work alongside non-unionists. Trade unionists will not see their basic rights frittered away, the rights for which they fought in trade union organisation.
When hon. Members talk about union and non-union shops, I am reminded of one very interesting distinction. Anyone

who knows anything about industry realises when he enters a factory whether he is in a well-organised shop. He sees proper conditions, safety regulations being applied, clean shop, people working regular hours, proper canteen facilities and negotiations taking place. A non-union shop is dirty. People often work odd hours. There are all types of different wages. The foreman comes round at 4 o'clock and says to a man, "You will work tonight". If the man replies that he does not want to, he is simply told, "You will work tonight". There is no proper negotiation. To hear right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite talking about trade unions, one would think that we lived in an ideal society. I am sorry to have to tell them that, in large parts of British industry, many workers are first-class citizens only outside the factory gates.
I come now to the central issues of the agency shop and the closed shop or, as I prefer to put it, 100 per cent. trade unionism. I do not believe in anyone being denied the right of employment so long as he is prepared to accept the conditions operating in his work place. I am in favour of 100 per cent. trade unionism as opposed to the closed shoo. I quite understand why the closed shop works in certain industries. It is not always possible to organise workers in the way that I prefer.
There is nothing undemocratic about trade unionists demonstrating actively and positively against this Bill. If demonstrations were right for farmers and for other sections of the community, they are right for trade unionists. The trade unions have fought for a century to establish their basic rights. The belief that they have unlimited power is a myth perpetrated in our society. During the 1940s and 1950s, trade unionists were very gentle with our society, at a time when they could have gained far more by using their powers with unlimited force. But they have never failed to consider the nation as a whole, because they are part of it.
In the Division Lobby tonight, I believe that the Labour Party and the trade unions will be united. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) takes a different view, and he is entitled to express it in this House. I only wish that another


right hon. Friend of mine would put his views as forcefully and frankly as my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East does.
My hon. Friend spoke of trade union leaders and militancy. However, if by some mischance this Measure becomes law and is implemented, and if the disruption occurs on the factory floor which its implementation can bring about, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and my hon. Friend may look back with nostalgia to moderate trade union leaders of today like Jack Jones and Hugh Scanlon. In their places, we may find a great deal more industrial unrest.
The Bill will not solve the problem of industrial unrest. We shall achieve some form of industrial sanity in this country only when we have proper agreements, when employers are prepared to recognise trade unions—which many are not—when they are prepared to negotiate properly with trade unions and to recognise that trade unionists have a part to play in management as well as on the workshop floor. In this latter respect, perhaps I may add that I should like to see a change in the ownership of many of our basic industries, by which, I believe, we could achieve a great deal. However, that is a much deeper economic issue, and I shall not go into it now.
If he wishes to see in 1970 the sort of sanity about which he speaks, I remind the Secretary of State of what was said today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). We are not dealing with the people of the 1920s or the 1930s. We are dealing with people in the 1970s, who are not necessarily prepared to accept past standards, who are not prepared to accept the impositions of law. We can see what is happening in Germany, in America and in Sweden. In Sweden, recently, there was an unofficial strike. Quite an unusual event. What happened?—600 workers were out. The shop steward was responsible, and he was brought before the industrial court. He was ordered to use his best endeavours to bring the workers back to work. What happened? The following morning, one man turned up at the factory, the shop steward. He said to the management, "I am here to work. I have used my best endeavours, and 599 have stayed outside". The British workers

are second to none in ingenuity, so that is just a little example of what can and will happen.
I shall conclude now, because I know that I am keeping my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition from addressing the House. Ministers do not understand the trade union movement. The Secretary of State is misreading the situation. He does not understand the tensions and pressures. He does not seem to appreciate that the trade unions will not co-operate with him and that what he is doing will create a divisive influence and difficult situations for everyone concerned.
We must vote against the Bill tonight, and we must fight it every inch of the way until we see it repealed and off the Statute Book, because that is the only answer to the situation.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I do not intend to follow in full the line adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in parts of his speech today. I shall not follow him in what was, in the main, a philosophical, or quasi-philosophical, defence of the Bill, and I do not think it necessary at this stage of the debate to reply to those parts of his speech which seemed rather ad hominem, as far as I was concerned—or "ad feminem", as far as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is concerned—including his recital of the well-worn Conservative legend about the events of June, 1969.
I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman in the substantial part of his speech in which he appeared, I thought, to seize upon the Bill as the centrepiece of his economic strategy. On another occasion, I should have liked him to spell out the Government's economic strategy, which is some mystery to many of us, but, unfortunately, he did not choose to speak in the economic debate a month ago. But I welcome, as the whole House will, that the Prime Minister has, after nearly six months, intervened once again in our debates, and I do not need to tell him that we look forward to hearing from him again.
The right hon. Gentleman went so wide of the Bill, and I intend to stick, on the whole, so close to it for most of what I have to say, that I hope to be


in order if I remind the House—after all, it is nearly Christmas—that after the vote tonight the Prime Minister will not be in the House again, I think, before we adjourn, or, indeed, for some time after the House resumes. I am sure that the whole House will wish him an enjoyable—inevitably tiring though it will be—and, at the same time, productive visit to North America. In the New Year he will, of course, be at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, and I am sure that when he gets there he will thank me for my original suggestion which led to its being in Singapore. I think he will find that that is all right. In offering him good wishes for that as well, I would say in relation to what must be the main subject of discussion in Singapore, the South African subject—I do it in the traditional words addressed to someone attending a Christmas party—"Don't do anything I wouldn't do".
Rather than follow the right hon. Gentleman in some of his other comments this afternoon, I would like to use my time, with the help of the House, to give adequate time to the Solicitor-General whom we would all like to hear tonight, by trying to sum up our case against the Bill in the same manner as the Secretary of State did yesterday and on other occasions when he has put the Government's case forward. Yesterday he was certainly putting his case seriously and sincerely, even if we disagree fundamentally with his proposals and conclusions.
Similarly, my purpose tonight is to summarise, from the main themes of this debate, the reasoned case which leads us to seek to reject the Bill as unworkable, provocative and, in our view, harmful to industrial relations in this country.
This has been by common consent, I think, a constructive and serious debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) last night paid a tribute to five maiden speakers: the hon. Members for Liverpool, Exchange (Mr. Parry), Cheadle (Mr. Normanton), Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. McCartney), Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith) and Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Coombs). It is right that all of us should pay tribute to the other maiden speakers tonight, the hon. Members for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler), Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) and Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe). One of them is, I think, the

son of an esteemed Parliamentarian, Lord Butler. How any son of his can support such a Bill I cannot understand.
I want to deal first with the claim, repeatedly made, that this Bill is based in some sense on the Donovan Report. This claim has been made by the Government. It is not. It has been made clear in all the public comments on the Bill, including comments made by members of the Royal Commission itself, that this is not so. If the Government seriously want to maintain their argument about Donovan, and I do not think they would want to sustain it, I would suggest that they get Lord Donovan to prepare a commentary on the Bill, setting out where it follows and does not follow the Royal Commission's Report. Then I hope they will publish his comments as a White Paper.
For my part, I will cite a few of the most serious departures, and this will be anything but an exhaustive list. Perhaps the Solicitor-General who is trying to establish a Donovanian paternity for his Measure, might comment upon or even seek to correct what I am saying. Donovan said that where conditions of registration of unions were involved they should not be worse than the 1871 Act. He refused specifically in terms to equate the right to join a union with the right not to join a union and said that they were not comparable. We referred to the fact that unions should have freedom to decide with whom they work; the Bill asserts the flat contrary.
At least it asserts the flat contrary especially for manual workers but it does not assert it for the lawyers, with whom the British system of industrial relations will be increasingly infested if this Bill becomes law. This Bill, we are told—and the Government have claimed this—is "Fair Deal at Work" translated into action. It is not exactly "Fair Deal at Work", and I want to make one or two points about that later. In the main let us grant that this is "Fair Deal at Work" writ in legislative form. "Fair Deal at Work" was promulgated as I understand it, before Donovan reported. It was based on the evidence presented to Donovan by the Inns of Court Conservative Association, as it then styled itself, although I gather it is now operatig under a different alias. It failed at any rate to provide, in the work it did, for the lawyers' trade union


having to admit anyone who sought entry. That is the biggest closed shop of all. Indeed, the lawyers whom the Bill inserts at every stage of industrial relations, at shop floor level and right up to the top courts of the land, are not only the biggest closed shop that we know in this country: they are even closed against other lawyers.
I do not suppose that it is suggested that solicitors should be on the Court—I do not know—as judges. The barristers, however, who are exalted under this Measure, are a closed shop against that branch of the legal profession which, for some reason, in this House we do not call learned—namely, solicitors—although they are no less skilled than the barristers and are often more down to earth because they are much more in touch with ordinary human problems. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite are busy safeguarding the restriction of entry in another piece of legislation to prevent solicitors sitting on the bench in county courts and elsewhere, even though there are not enough barristers to go round and we have to find lots more jobs for barristers in industry from now on.
The fourth point about Donovan is that he proposed a direct right of appeal for trade union members dismissed by their employers and was much more positive, although it was agreed yesterday that this might be a Committee point, concerning reinstatement. Donovan never proposed what is a central feature of the Bill: the imposition by outside bodies of procedure agreements on industry and on trade unions.
I think I am right in saying, although the Solicitor-General can correct me on this when he winds up, that "Fair Deal at Work" did not propose this. I do not think that "Fair Deal at Work", for which the Prime Minister claims—with some justice, I concede—an electoral mandate, provided for this imposition of a procedural agreement or an industrial agreement from outside through the mechanism of the courts or in any other way.
While I readily concede to the Prime Minister that, according to the rules, he is entitled to claim an electoral mandate for the Bill, of course he did not win the election on this. He won it on the different mandate that he would bring

down prices immediately. This mandate has followed the other one—it has been slipped in on the side—but the Prime Minister cannot maintain this new constitutional game of choosing one's mandate, rejecting the one on which he was not elected but which he slipped in on the side. Even though, according to every established rule, the Prime Minister has a mandate for the Bill—I grant him that—I would still like to hear from the Solicitor-General whether he believes that the Prime Minister had a mandate for the insertion or imposition of an agreement from outside.
Again, Donovan rejected the enforceability of agreements by legislation. Donovan specifically rejected the enforcement of agreements. It is, however, a central feature of the Bill. Indeed, on this point, my reading of the Bill is that it goes far beyond a specific pledge made by the Prime Minister during the election. I will return to that later.
Seventhly, Donovan rejected the doctrine of imposing heavy damages on a union for action against an extraneous party even if that party may be an associated party, whereas the Bill provides just for that. Perhaps, therefore, the Solicitor-General when he replies, despite what he said publicly about the Bill being based on Donovan, will be prepared to discuss Donovan from the Government's case and let the Government's case stand, if I may borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister, on its own two feet. A lot of far more deserving cases will be required to stand on their own feet. Therefore, on the Government's arguments, there is no reason why this lame duck should not do so.
I come now to a more fundamental argument against the Bill. This legislation is based primarily, I think, on United States experience. No one is likely easily to convince any hon. Member of this House that the Americans are more successful in conducting their industrial relations or avoiding and settling strikes than we are. The House has on many occasions been given the number of man-days lost in the United States and in this country over comparable periods—the last 10 years, the last five years or the last year. Even in 1969, which was by common consent a bad year for industrial relations in this country, per thousand employees the number of days


lost in America, with all the legislation which we are now borrowing, was something like two and a half times what it is in this country, and over the five years as a whole, five times what it is in this country.
Hon. Members will have seen comments on the Government's proposals—I am referring to the Consultative Document—by Mr. Theodore Kheel, who is known to many of us in the House personally. He is one of the leading, if not the leading, American industrial legal experts, the regular choice of successive American Presidents on arbitrations and conciliations in connection with nationwide disputes—rail roads, airlines, shipping, docks—and he is also, as many of us have good reason to know, Chairman of the New York State Commission on Public Service Employees.
It is relevant to this Bill to point out that Mr. Kheel chaired a speech which I gave in New York earlier this year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I wish that some hon. Members opposite had read it, in which case they would have cheered much louder. It is relevant to the Bill to say that in the audience on that occasion was the head of G.E.C. of America and the main union leaders involved in the G.E.C. strike which was going on at that time and which, with all America's laws, had lasted 11 weeks. It was a strike which, even by that time, had caused the loss of more man days than were lost in the whole of British industry in the whole of 1969. They got together that night to see whether they could settle the strike, which they did some little time afterwards. It was a very expensive strike, despite the laws.
A few weeks ago we saw that what was bad for G.E.C. last winter was bad for General Motors this autumn, because General Motors had a strike of similar length—more than 11 weeks.
We on this side of the House do not believe that we have anything very much to learn from the United States in industrial relations matters. Yet we are being asked to vote for a Bill which almost exclusively conveys into our law irrelevant and alien provisions from the United States.
I referred just now to Mr. Theodore Kheel. I should like to quote what he wrote recently on the Government's pro-

posals, having said that they had all been borrowed from American legislation:
We Americans should be flattered even though significant parts of our system have been omitted. Perhaps we would be"—
that is, flattered—
if we were not in the middle of a strike"—
that was the General Motors strike—
likely to break all records for time lost: it wage increases and living costs were not reaching astronomical heights; if rank and file rejection of negotiated contracts were not at their highest level: and if public employees' strikes—illegal in the United States—were not occurring with increasing frequency.
There is a testimonial for you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Kheel went on to say:
We probably could improve our system by borrowing some, but not all, of England's practices.
He referred to "England's" practices. That was his ignorance. He meant, of course, Britain.
As we have been reminded in the debate, the Bill is based partly on the Wagner Act of 1935, the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947—and how much it reflects the views of those twin reactionaries—and the Landum Griffin Act of 1959. But it would be fair to say—and searching analysis will make it clear—that it reflects very largely the views of Taft-Hartley and Landum Griffin much more than the Wagner Act.
But it will be noted that all the legislation in America was inflicted on the long-suffering United States at 12-year intervals—24 years in all. The Prime Minister's distillation of the worst features of all three is to be inflicted on Britain, not in 24 years, but in 12 months.
When the Prime Minister claims the support of public opinion, as he did this afternoon, he rightly refers to public disquiet about some of the big strikes of the last two years which have occurred under successive Governments in this country—highly publicised strikes, rightly so, and damaging to exports and in many cases to employment and in some cases to thousands of workers not in any way parties to the dispute. The plain fact is that there has hardly been a big strike in recent months and years to which the Bill would be relevant.
Let us take Pilkingtons. Pilkingtons was a damaging strike. I saw it at close quarters, as some hon. Gentlemen did. Many of my constituents work there, and


part of the factory is in my constituency. The strike was very costly to employment in the car industry. This Bill would have been irrelevant in dealing with the Pilkington strike, and one of its provisions would actually have aggravated the situation. The 20 per cent. formula for the agency shop would create a situation in which there could be a strike at Pilkingtons time and time again. The problem at Pilkingtons was a militant break-away from the General and Municipal Workers' Union and the difficulty of getting the men back. The break-aways in the end and after a difficult struggle were repudiated by firm leadership by moderate union leaders and also by the firm action of Mr. Vic Feather of the T.U.C. Under the 20 per cent. system, the militants would have had it dead easy to overbid the moderate leadership. They could have chosen their moment. They could, for example, have become very popular in the last-ditch fight to prevent the return to work and the end of the strike.
Some hon. Members, perhaps not in the House now, within my recollection have fought hard for the rights of breakaway unions in the past. By "breakaway unions" they mostly meant nice well-scrubbed, house-trained, well-behaved, mainly Conservative trade union break-away workers who could be relied on to be even more moderate than the union leadership. I think that that is what has been generally understood by "break-away union", but that is not symptomatic of the people who would be able to claim benefit from the 20 per cent. agency agreement.
I have heard the Bill described in some respects as a blacklegs' charter. That is a matter which no doubt will be much debated in the House, but in the Pilkington strike which I have mentioned and many others, in respect of this 20 per cent. menace, the Bill might even be called a militants' charter or a "Trots'" charter, because it is the militants who will be encouraged.
The Bill could not have dealt with the G.K.N. Sankey strike. The Bill could not have dealt with the two coal strikes, the one under the Labour Government in October 1969 and the one this year. Both

those strikes related to the preparation of a new agreement. Instead of the sporadic strikes this year, damaging though they were, under the Bill there would have been an official strike covering the whole coalfield. Only the rules of the N.U.M. prevented this. In the ballot a majority of about 56 per cent. were in favour of an official strike, but the N.U.M. rules required a two-thirds majority, and the N.U.M. leadership insisted on observance of the constitution. Some of us on this side of the House, as well as Ministers, pressed for the observance of the N.U.M. constitution. Many of my hon. Friends did, and I did in South Wales.
Compulsory ballots have another snag, and I am quoting this in relation to this strike. We considered compulsory ballots favourably 18 months to two years ago and decided not to press on with them — [Laughter.] — hon. Gentlemen might listen to the argument. This was before consultations began. Compulsory ballots can make it much harder to stop a strike than to start one. If there had been—[Interruption.] I want hon. Gentlemen to address themselves to the seriousness of the situation. We are to vote on a Bill providing for a compulsory ballot. Had there been a compulsory ballot in the recent coal dispute which showed a 56 per cent. majority in favour, the men would have been committed to a strike. That having once happened, it would have been extremely difficult, without having a second strike, for the leadership, even with a new offer, to pull out of that strike, because there would have been a ballot in its favour.
Last week's electricity dispute was not a strike. Suppose it had been. There would have been a ballot, and I would have thought far more than 50 per cent. would have been in favour. It would then have been impossible for Mr. Frank Chapple this weekend, in the face of that ballot and without another ballot, to have shown the statesmanship to which both sides of the House pay tribute. This is an appealing and plausible proposal of which at one time I was in favour, but I hope hon. Gentlemen will consider whether this is not more likely to perpetuate strikes than to stop them.
In regard to coal strikes, does anybody think that any conceivable National Coal


Board Chairman would have sued the unofficial strikers when the strike came to an end? It has not happened this year and certainly did not happen last year—any more than the Betteshanger coal miners could have been sued, or the strike in the Yorkshire coalfield just over a month before D-day could have been the subject of legislation.
Let me take another case with which the Bill could not deal, Port Talbot. That was one of the most difficult strikes that have ever taken place. Certainly in the end, after settlement by the intervention of Vic Feather, the Bill could not have touched it. Then again, the Ford strike would not have been dealt with by the Bill because it involved the negotiation of a new agreement.
I referred a moment ago to the enforceability of contracts and made clear that it had no authority from Donovan. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and others claim that they have a mandate for the present form of the Bill on enforceable contracts. There is no such mandate on enforceable contracts in the form in which the Bill has been drafted.
During the election on 2nd June I challenged the right hon. Gentleman, the then Leader of the Opposition. I asked whether under his proposals enforceability would require the assent of both parties, as was proposed in my right hon. Friend's Bill which was introduced into the House, or whether, for example, employers could withhold assent from the proposition that it was not to be enforceable.
I then challenged the right hon. Gentleman directly and he was good enough to respond in his own Press conference an hour later at 11 a.m. on 2nd June. This is what he said, and it is on record.
The Conservatives would not give the right to enforce a contract against the wishes of the unions.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Wilson: Perhaps the Solicitor-General will explain tonight how Clause 32 (1) can be reconciled with that pledge. But that is not all. Even if we were to accept that the present post-electoral Conservative mood move gave them the right to forget about those pledges, we must ask whether, in fact, enforceability is workable. I ask the

House how many employers, having, after a long and costly strike, got their men back to work, would sue, embitter and poison the post-settlement atmosphere and would risk bringing them out again? How many? A few industrial Bourbons of the Arundel Roberts, B.S.R. type, yes, possibly.
Let me take as an example the Leyland strike last winter, which lasted 11 weeks. The management went to extraordinary lengths to get the men back to work. It was the first time I had ever heard of Communist shop stewards being invited to lunch at the House of Lords on the occasion of the maiden speech of the chairman of their company. It was at that lunch that the return to work was effectively negotiated—the first settlement ever achieved in ermine. Does anybody think that the noble Lord, having gone to all that trouble, would then have instituted civil proceedings against the union when the strikers went back, especially as it was not an official strike? It is a dream world to be talking in this way. And it is also unthinkable that Lord Pilkington would have thought of taking such a step when at last the Pilkington dispute was settled.
It is not merely that no responsible employer would invoke the clause after a settlement. In how many cases would this provision foul up negotiations for a new agreement, negotiations necessary to avert or end a strike, by insisting that the last-minute agreement reached should be enforceable in the courts? Hon. Members with industrial experience will know that in a difficult dispute there is frequently no settlement until the small hours. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, who yesterday bravely struggled to make an important speech after a very late sitting on Sunday night, well knows this. It was true of a number of strikes that were settled in that way—some by my right hon. Friend. In the Ford dispute in 1969 one sitting lasted until 2 a.m. on Sunday.
Take a settlement at any hour in the middle of the night: two o'clock, agreement near, after tempers have been badly frayed; agreement ready for signature and just a handshake—I am assuming no lawyers present—just men on both sides steeped in experience in industrial relations and in the point at issue at the factory or plant; drinks perhaps ready to


pour out. Do right hon. and hon. Gentlemen believe that in that situation—that fragile situation of a settlement ready to sign—the agreement would not be imperilled by an insistence on legal enforceability—imperilled not for a day, but perhaps for weeks? It is wholly unrealistic to suggest that they would.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is not the point; that this situation need not arise; if nobody mentions it at two o'clock in the morning it will be enforceable unless both sides agree that it is not.
Then let right hon. and hon. Gentlemen consider another way in which this can really muddy the waters of industrial relations. The unions might insist on a non-enforceability clause or, at their option, they might not, and the employer will buy it at a higher basic rate—more paid holidays, more earnings, more bonus, or whatever it is. That is a recipe for inflationary settlements if ever there was one.
I think that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen should be warned by my right hon. Friend's reference yesterday to the current negotiations on the engineering industry's procedural agreement. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman has many times said that it is atmosphere of industry, the ambience of industry, the procedural agreements, the machinery, the atmosphere, the training, and the good will which matters more than legislation.
If there is one thing more important than any other in industry today it is to get an up-to-date engineering industry procedural agreement instead of one 50 years out of date. But this is held up—we could have it immediately, from what I am told—because of this issue of enforceability.
Is it not a fact that going back almost to 1920 to get an agreement expressing the necessities of the 1970s would do more to improve industrial relations than insisting on legislation going back to the 1870s?
Enforceability of contracts is an import from America. There is no time for me to set out tonight all the facts about how enforceability operates in America. I am sure that hon. Members will have read the report "Greener

Grass" by Mr. Pat Lowry, at that time industrial relations director of the Engineering Employers' Federation, now industrial relations director of British Leyland, following his own authoritative survey on behalf of the Engineering Employers' Federation. I will briefly summarise it—no one who has read the report will regard this as an unfair summary—in these terms.
Mr. Lowry reported that the making of contracts is becoming more difficult—that is because of enforceability—that unions have increasingly tended to refer contracts back to their members for final ratification—that is because of enforceability—that the number of contracts now being rejected by the membership after conclusion has recently been growing—this is because of enforceability—that even then the making of an agreement is not final, because many contracts now, and increasingly, include a list of items that may be reopened during the term of those contracts; all those supposedly sacrosanct contracts providing room for legal strikes over, for example, rates for new jobs, new jobs which emerge from factory reorganisation, production standards, or even, in some cases, providing that there can be re-negotiation of wages for jobs which were originally agreed in the enforceable contract.
Surely right hon. Gentlemen must agree that the facts of industrial life in America are making a nonsense of enforceable agreements and that they will do so equally in this country.
There is no time to go through certain other issues, though there will be time. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's feelings about it. He does not like having his Bill shown up for what it is. But I will, at any rate, quote this to please the right hon. Gentleman. At the end of the report by Mr. Lowry, when he was talking—[Interruption.]. We do not think that the right way to settle these things is by abrasiveness. We would like to hold on not to a pane of glass but to a mirror of what is happening in America. Mr. Lowry said:
… to the best of my knowledge"—
and the whole thing depends on the employers suing afterwards—
none of the employers I met had ever allowed the law to take its full course to the extent that damages were collected from the union.


He goes further and records that employers who had
been through it all
told him that
law suits and the need to live thereafter with the union concerned were quite impracticable.
But that is the central part of the Bill.
I regret that there is no time to quote two very important judgments on this legislation by the late Lord Justice Slesser. Perhaps it will be possible in Committee. He wrote two letters in The Times which perhaps most of us missed, because this was during the election campaign, when many of us were quite busy. There was no one more expert or learned in these matters both as a counsel for trade unions on industrial matters and as a judge. His letters gave his utter refutation of the system of law behind the consultative document and now behind the Bill.

Dr. Tom Stuttaford: Dr. Tom Stuttaford (Norwich, South) rose—

Mr. Wilson: I shall not give way, the Prime Minister also had to take account of the lack of time. I want the Solicitor-General to rise on time.
I think that there is worry about the effect of the Bill, on shop stewards and others in various positions in industry. There is worry that they can be held responsible in certain circumstances, that what they say in an informal situation can be quoted in court, when they may not have their lawyer present at the time they said it. Something may go wrong in industry. There may be some lack of consideration, the kind of thing described by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) last night from his industrial experience, leaving a shop steward or someone else in authority saying, "We will not have this." Even that could be quoted in court. What many people wonder is, who will report on them? What kind of system will be set up for reporting? I do not believe that 99 out of a hundred employers would even want to do that. It will be the suspicion that they may be doing it that will embitter relations.
The biggest indictment of the Bill is quite different. It is its irrelevance, its almost complacent irrelevance, to the most significant development any of us have seen in industrial relations in our

lifetime. It is recent in this country, but is not confined to this country. Every advanced industrial country has it. It has extended even to countries such as Sweden, where the rule of law worked by a powerful trade union movement has operated for 30 years. I refer to the growth of shop floor power, industrial militancy, part of it spontaneous and part of it capable of being created by unscrupulous unofficial leaders. This is the central fact of the 1970s. The Bill, not least the 20 per cent. agency proposal, will encourage the militants to overbid the responsible trade union leadership. I have referred to Pilkington and the electricity dispute. It would have been impossible, I think, for Mr. Chapple to lead the return to normal working if the Bill had been in operation.
I do not think that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have shown much sign of recognising the importance of something I threw across the Floor of the House to the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade last Tuesday, when I referred—[Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter. Any hon. Members who want to laugh can go out and miss the next bit of what I have to say. I referred then to the history of the Electrical Trades Union, as it was then called, in recent years, and I said that that history must have a warning. That was before the tragic death of Mr. Les Cannon, which the whole House mourns. That union is in an electoral situation. What do right hon. Gentlemen opposite want? What can be achieved by every irresponsible weekend speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for example, and every gloating reference in the House to humiliating moderate trade union leaders?
Faced with this new and dangerous development, the most significant fact in industrial relations today, the Bill is totally irrelevant. It reflects a kind of Maginot mentality to what is really going on in British industry, and perhaps not even that. In a revolutionary situation—[Interruption.] I intend to finish this, so if hon. Gentlemen will let me finish my last two or three sentences, we can hear the Solicitor-General. If they are going to barrack, they will delay his getting up. If I am going to be interrupted I will say I do not intend to follow the precedent of the Prime Minister when, more than once, he insisted,


having been interrupted, on cutting into Government time. I will now finish, if hon. Gentlemen will stop interrupting.
It is, as I have been saying, a revolutionary situation, in which practically every weekend speech made by right hon. Gentleman, every action from the mini-Budget to the divisive speeches of the Prime Minister, is irrelevant. What we must face here is that in this Bill the court of right hon. Gentlemen opposite shows as much understanding in the revolutionary situation as the court of Louis XVI or Nicholas II, or even King Farouk. [Interruption.] I have plenty of time for this last sentence. For its basic and irrelevant approach, no less than for its provocation and its unworkability, I call on the House tonight to vote against the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: The Solicitor-General.

Mr. David James: On a point of order —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a duty; I must hear the point of order.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. James: I will be very brief—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had a very good debate so far. It is my fate to hear the point of order.

Mr. James: As I was called too late in the debate for a point that I addressed to the Leader of the Opposition to reach him, could I ask him, Mr. Speaker, through you, as a point of order, whether, when he addresses the perfectly legitimate mass meeting of trade unionists at the Albert Hall on 12th January he will take the opportunity to condemn—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who has not addressed me so far on a point of order, will realise that he is taking the time of his hon. and learned Friend. [Interruption.] Order. Now that we have got back to the serious debate, I would point out that we have listened to both sides tolerantly, in spite of the deep divisions. I would ask the House to be fair to the winding-up speaker.

9.35 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I begin on a non-controversial note by following the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming the maiden speakers who have contributed to our debate, all three being my hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) struck, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, a note not uncharacteristic of his distinguished father when he called for some sort of order and reason to come into our affairs. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) both made human and clear contributions to our proceedings, and we look forward to hearing from all three of them again.
I come at once to the point which the Leader of the Opposition made when he suggested that we were endeavouring to assert a Donovanian legitimacy for our proposals. We have never gone as far as that. What we have said—and I repeat tonight—is that a substantial part of the proposals to be found in the Bill are derived from Donovan. Many other parts go beyond that.
The present Government were not alone in feeling the need to go beyond that because the right hon. Gentleman, when speaking in the House in July of last year, pointed out where his Government parted company from the Donovan recommendations. They did so
in the need for firm and specific action to deal with some of the most urgent problems of industrial relations, and particularly the problems of inter-union disputes and unconstitutional stoppages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1969; Vol. 786, c. 681.]
It is along those lines that our proposals made in "Fair Deal at Work", and discussed and elaborated upon since then, have gone beyond the Donovan proposals, though there is large measure of common ground.
I come to the second line of criticism made by the Leader of the Opposition; his suggestion that our proposals are derived from some unique transatlantic setting and are irrelevant to the needs of this country. The proposals contained in the Bill are as British as those contained in "In Place Of Strife". They are designed by Britons for Britain's


needs and to meet the same problems as those identified in "In Place Of Strife".
It does not follow, however, that we should not look at what other countries have done or compare the features of our industrial scene with theirs; and it was in "In Place Of Strife" that the Labour Government pointed out that
Compared with other countries, we have a large number of strikes in relation to our work force and in industries other than coal mining the number of strikes has gone up considerably in recent years
and they concluded on this:
The typical British strike is unofficial and usually in breach of agreed procedures.
and it is for that reason that we have got our own proposals designed, as those submitted by the previous Administration, to meet our needs. If we look at the experience of other countries, which surely we are entitled to do, we find, as the Donovan Report noted,—and as, indeed, those comparisons made in "In Place Of Strife" acknowledged—that almost every other country in the Western industrialised world has a clear, modern framework of law to meet the problems for which this system is being brought forward.
Whether one looks at Socialist Sweden on the one hand or capitalist North America on the other—or at our European competitors across the Channel—one sees that they all have a framework of law; and it is that deficiency which our proposals are being brought forward to try to meet.
It is no good pointing, as though it were proof of the argument, to the fact that the General Motors strike in the United States lasted a long time, because at the end of it, as the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) pointed out—it was the first strike for 24 years—when the men were led by Mr. Walter Reuther, he brought them out on strike after at least three years' peace, without the contract having been broken by anybody, and it was known that when the men went back there would be another three years' peace. The dilemma of British industry is the continuous interruption of production lines. Nobody knows where a strike will take place next.
There are, of course, differences in the patterns obtaining in the various countries and our problem, which is that to which I have referred, was pointed out in "In Place of Strife". Here we share

common ground with Donovan in terms of the diagnosis that our problem arising from unofficial strikes is not only serious but it is urgent that we get to grips with it. It is to that end that our proposals are designed.
It is no good suggesting that the American system does not work. The right hon. Gentleman in his earlier references to Pat Lowry's book, did not refer specifically to the passage which he quoted more than once during the General Election campaign. The sentence he quoted was:
As regards the law in relation to strikes, it is worth emphasising again that in spite of its entitlement to do so not a single company I have met has ever sued a union for damages as a result of wildcat strike action.
The right hon. Gentleman did not quote the following sentence:
Virtually every company I met stressed that the threat of this sanction is a most potent weapon in securing effective intervention by a trade union …".
The whole of that paragraph, if I were to weary the House by quoting it, supports the diagnosis underlined by an article to which, again, the right hon. Gentleman did not refer, in The Times—a few days after that of Mr. Theodore Kheel—by Mr. Jack Lee, last year's president of the Institute of Personnel Management, which pointed out that almost all ex-Colonial territories which inherited our system of law have hastened to change the framework of our law and are following the pattern set by other countries.
The specific point, again, which the right hon. Gentleman sought to make, think by reference to Mr. Kheel's article and to American experience, was to suggest that proposals in the Bill for a pre-strike ballot are out of joint with what is needed. He sought to suggest that they were dropped because of second thoughts by himself and the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). If we look at the first formal proposals for a pre-strike ballot in this country we find them in the document "In Place of Strife"—not a lightly considered document but one placed before the House with the full authority not just of the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady but the Government.
We read in paragraph 3:
The Government"—


The Government:
places the following proposals before Parliament and the nation convinced that they are justified …
We will come back to the grounds later on, but one of the proposals which they were convinced were justified was this very proposal for a pre-strike ballot in certain circumstances exactly in the form, and to meet the need, that is now laid down in the Bill. One reads:
The power will be used where the Secretary of State believes that the proposed strike would involve a serious threat to the economy or public interest, and there is doubt whether it commands the support of those concerned. The object will not be to place a prohibition on such strikes, but to help to ensure that before strikes of this importance take place the union members themselves are convinced that they are right to go on strike.
That is the objective of the proposal contained in our Bill. Our proposal does not go beyond that. It does not make prestrike ballots compulsory. It is designed for the exceptional case; to meet the exceptional need rightly identified by the right hon. Gentleman's Government.
It is not, as I understand the history, though the history of this matter is difficult to follow, right to say that the proposal was abandoned because the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends had second thoughts. It is true that it did not find a place in the interim Bill which the right hon. Lady was drafting in mid-April—one of the several industrial relations Bills for which she was responsible to various stages of gestation—but not because it was being cast away. The right hon. Lady said:
The reason for this omission is partly that the problem of official strikes is less acute than that of unconstitutional strikes and, therefore, the need for action is less immediate.
The right hon. Lady went on:
But there are a number of unions which do not have any provision in their rules for conducting ballots, and it will take time for them to work out and incorporate the correct procedures in their rules."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 1187.]
So at least until 16th April of last year that proposal was more than a glint in the right hon. Lady's eye; and it is legitimised by its ancestry when it finds its place in our Bill.
I come now to a rather more general line of criticism developed by a number

of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. It is the suggestion that the Bill will provide a lawyers' paradise, an infestation of lawyers. Before I analyse a little more fully the objects and rôle that the law can play, I remind the House that the Bill runs to 150 Clauses and eight Schedules—a complex document, said the right hon. Lady yesterday, suggesting that it was long and likely to lead to difficulty.
It was the right hon. Lady herself who told the House yesterday that she drafted an Industrial Relations Bill, and that even in her own Bill—I know not to which one she was referring—she knew of the complexity and that she had put towels round her head. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred to the right hon. Lady's published Bill yesterday as a miniscule, emaciated document. Emaciated it certainly was. Miniscule it certainly was not with 97 Clauses and eight Schedules. That was only the Bill that saw the light of day and that was designed to enact and place upon the Statute Book only 14 of the 25 proposals for legislation listed in the appendix to "In Place of Strife", of which proposals the previous Government had said that they were convinced that they were justified.
How many further Clauses, how much further expansion of law and lawyers, were visualised? [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may not like what I am saying, but what I am saying is very relevant to the points made in the debate. One of the points made, and made not least by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), was that the Bill will introduce too much law and too many lawyers. It was he who in the last speech before the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition spoke complained specifically of this. I am answering the point by reminding the hon. Gentleman and the House of the extent to which his own Government's legislation involved precisely the same commitment.
The Bill published by the last Government—[Interruption.] The Bill published by the last Government—[Interruption.] The more often hon. Members interrupt the longer it will take me to finish my sentence. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting on very well. There is no need to disturb it.

The Solicitor-General: The Bill published by the last Government—[Interruption.] I intend to finish the sentence and I have been given the opportunity of doing so—as well as that which the right hon. Lady did not publish, would have involved as extensive, as detailed and as complex—indeed more so—a framework of law. That legal framework—we can analyse it in a moment—was that which the right hon. Lady was convinced was justified and which the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) now finds it difficult to understand as the subject of what he has described as the violent, unrestrained and partisan attacks made from the Opposition Front Bench upon the very proposals which were being advanced by right hon. and hon. Members opposite only 18 months ago.
I will now say a few words about the rôle of law in the more general sense.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton) rose—

The Solicitor-General: The rôle of law—

Mr. Paget: Can I—

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure, but I do not think that the Solicitor-General is giving way.

The Solicitor-General: I do not wish to give way.

Mr. Paget: Mr. Paget rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman obviously is not giving way.

The Solicitor-General: It is right that the law which is to be advanced must be a proper and a just law. But the law is about justice. The law contained in the Bill is designed to produce a framework for a civilised society in industry. Many of the troubles which the previous Administration sought to solve arose from what has been described as the deliberate abstention of the law, and it is the need for a new law which was identified and which is being sustained by the Government to create a proper framework. I welcome the support of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who made this very point about the value of a proper framework of law. It is strange to hear it suggested that the

law can play no useful rôle in supporting sustained responsible voluntary action. It is also strange to hear it suggested that the important Part I of the Bill, and the code to be introduced under it, can play no useful part.
The House may not have entirely forgotten what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said in a debate on another subject:
I attach great importance to the declaratory nature of the first part of the Bill. I believe that the very process of giving the law brings an instinctive response from the great majority of our citizens."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 23rd April, 1968; Vol. 763, c. 55]
That is the belief of hon. and right hon. Members on this side. If it was right for the right hon. Gentleman to say that in the context of the Race Relations Bill, then it is justifiable for us to assert the same respect for law on this side of the House—[Interruption.]

Mr. James Callaghan: Does not the Solicitor-General appreciate that the difference is that in the case of the Race Relations Bill the declaratory nature of the law was accepted by and acceptable to the overwhelming proportion of the population of the country? As hon. Gentlemen should know by now, this Bill is unacceptable to millions of trade unionists.

The Solicitor-General: What I know and what the House will know about the Bill is that the basic analysis upon which the Bill is rested was shared by the previous Administration, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. They were convinced that the proposals were justified. What is more important, in the context of the point put to me by the right hon. Gentleman, is that the results of the last election are increasingly sustained by the figures produced in one and every public opinion poll in this country. Not only is it the majority of the public that wants this Measure but a majority of trade union members as well. [Interruption.] If there is anyone seeking to build upon and extend a consensus in support of this legislation, it is my right hon. Friend and the members of the Government. The consensus for which the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) asked is to be found in the analyses made by this Administration and the previous Administration, endorsed and supported


by the overwhelming majority of the people of the country. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, Mrs. Barbara Castle.

Mrs. Castle: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is only right that he should give way, as he has persisted for the last quarter of an hour, instead of dealing with his own Bill, in misrepresenting the policy of my own—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The House must leave it to the protagonists. Mrs. Castle.

Mrs. Castle: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware, and is he not honest enough to admit, that the White Paper "In Place of Strife" specifically—[Interruption.]

An hon. Member: Stop reading.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Castle: —specifically set out and examined the proposals in this Government's Bill and rejected them in terms as undesirable and anti-trade union?

The Solicitor-General: It is true that "In Place of Strife" considered a number of proposals. But the House and the country cannot fail to be impressed by the fact that the right hon. Lady's hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East put his finger on the point when he said that the basic diagnosis of her proposed legislation and the diagnosis underlying this legislation are exactly the same and directed to the same end.
I turn now to one other point raised—

Mr. John Mendelson: Only four minutes left.

The Solicitor-General: I am dealing with points raised by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not got a case.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) must control himself.

Mr. Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is well recognised that many hon. Members have sat here during two days of debate and raised detailed

points on the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman has no right to evade replying to the debate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That may be so, but the hon. Gentleman must contain himself.

The Solicitor-General: If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had restrained themselves in the last few minutes, I could have got in a good many more useful arguments.
I was about to deal with the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition about the proposed enforcibility provisions. I say only that it is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman, having heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister advancing the essential framework of these provisions up and down the country for five years, now to suggest that in respect of one subsection we have no mandate. [Interruption.] The proposal is directly in line with what my right hon. Friend said on 2nd June. What is more important, where did the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend begin to find the shadow of a mandate for what they sought to introduce in their proposals in "In Place of Strife"?
As several right hon. and hon. Members opposite have pointed out, the truth is that the trade unions are a great estate of the Realm, and they are now at a state of maturity. It does not follow from that that they are the one estate which is to remain immune from any change in the law or the one estate whose responsibilities are to remain for ever undefined.
The proposals in the Bill bring the law in this country regulating industrial relations up to date. They are advanced. They are justified. The nation is convinced that they are justified. The present Government are convinced that they are justified. We got a mandate for them at the last election. I believe that the House will share that conviction tonight.

Mr. James Hamilton: Mr. James Hamilton (Bothwell) rose—

Mr. Francis Pym (Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): Mr. Francis Pym (Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—

Division No. 45.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Drayson, G. B.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Dykes, Hugh
Jones, Arthur (Northants, South)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Eden, Sir John
Jopling, Michael


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Astor, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Atkins, Humphrey
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Awdry, Daniel
Emery, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fell, Anthony
Kilfedder, James


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kimball, Marcus


Balniel, Lord
Fidler, Michael
King, Evelyn (Dorset, South)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kinsey, J. R.


Batsford, Brian
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kirk, Peter


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kitson, Timothy


Bell, Ronald
Fookes, Miss Janet
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fortescue, Tim
Knox, David


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Foster, Sir John
Lambton, Antony


Benyon, W.
Fowler, Norman
Lane, David


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Fox, Marcus
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Biffen, John
Fry, Peter
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Biggs-Davison, John
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Le Marchant, Spencer


Blaker, Peter
Gardner, Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gibson-Watt, David
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)


Body, Richard
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Boscawen, R. T.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Longden, Gilbert


Bossom, Sir Clive
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Loveridge, John


Bowden, Andrew
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Goodhart, Philip
MacArthur, Ian


Braine, Bernard
Goodhew, Victor
McCrindle, R. A.


Bray, Ronald
Gorst, John
McLaren, Martin


Brewis, John
Gower, Raymond
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McMaster, Stanley


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Green, Alan
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grieve, Percy
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Bryan, Paul
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maddan, Martin


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Gryils, Michael
Madel, David


Buck, Antony
Gummer, Selwyn
Maginnis, John E.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Garden, Harold
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Burden, F. A.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Marten, Neil


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mather, Carol


Campbell,Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maude, Angus


Carlisle, Mark
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hannan, John (Exeter)
Mawby, Ray


Cary, Sir Robert
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.



Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Channon, Paul
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Chapman, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hastings, Stephen
Miscampbell, Norman


Chichester-Clark, R.
Havers, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Churchill, W. S.
Hawkins, Paul
Moate, Roger


Clark, William (Surrey, East)
Hay, John
Molyneaux, James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hayhoe, Barney
Money, Ernie


Clegg, Walter
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Cockeram, Eric
Heseltine, Michael
Monro, Hector


Cooke, Robert
Hicks, Robert
Montgomery, Fergus


Coombs, Derek
Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Cooper, A. E.
Hiley, Joseph
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Cordle, John
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Corfield, F. V.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Mudd, David


Cormack, Patrick
Holland, Philip
Murton, Oscar


Costain, A. P.
Holt, Miss Mary
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Critchley, Julian
Hooson, Emlyn
Neave, Airey


Crouch, David
Hordern, Peter
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Crowder, F. P.
Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Curran, Charles
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Normanton, Tom


Dalkeith, Earl of
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Nott, John


Dance, James
Howell, David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranky


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hunt, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Osborn, John


Dean, Paul
Iremonger, T. L.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
James, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Dixon, Piers
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Paisley, Mr. Ian


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pardoe, John


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Jessel, Toby
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 280.

Peel, John
Scott, Nicholas
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Percival, Ian
Scott-Hopkins, James
Trew, Peter


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Sharpies, Richard
Tugendhat, Christopher


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Pink, R. Bonner
Shelton, William (Clapham)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Pounder, Rafton
Simeons, Charles
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Sinclair, Sir George
Vickers, Dame Joan


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Waddington, David


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Smith, Dudley (W 'wick &amp; L'mington)
W alder, David (Clitheroe)


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Soref, Harold
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Speed, Keith
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Spence, John
Wall, Patrick


Raison, Timothy
Sproat, Iain
Walters, Dennis


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stainton, Keith
Ward, Dame Irene


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor
Warren, Kenneth


Redmond, Robert
Steel, David
Weatherill, Bernard


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stokes, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wilkinson, John


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Sutcliffe, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Ridsdale, Julian
Tapsell, Peter
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tebbit, Norman
Worsley, Marcus


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Temple, John M.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Younger, Hn. George


Rost, Peter
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)



Royle, Anthony
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Russell, Sir Ronald
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Mr. Jasper More and


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Tilney, John





NOES


Abse, Leo
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Garrett, W. E.


Albu, Austen
Grossman, Rt. Hu. Richard
Gilbert, Dr. John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Ginsburg, David


Allen, Scholefield
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dalyell, Tam
Gourlay, Harry


Ashley, Jack
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Ashton, Joe
Davidson, Arthur
Grant, John D. (Islington, East)


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Barnes, Michael
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Barnett, Joel
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Hardy, Peter


Baxter, William
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)
Harper, Joseph


Beaney, Alan
Deakins, Eric
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Henn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Delargy, H. J.
Hattersley, Roy


Bidwell, Sydney
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Bishop, E. S.
Dempsey, James
Heffer, Eric S.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Hilton, W. S.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Doig, Peter
Horam, John


Booth, Albert
Dormand, J. D.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Huckfield, Leslie


Bradley, Tom
Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Eadie, Alex
Hunter, Adam


Buchan, Norman
Edelman, Maurice
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Janner, Greville


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Ellis, Tom
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, West)
English, Michael
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Cant, R. B.
Evans, Fred
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Carmichael, Neil
Faulds, Andrew
John, Brynmor


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Fernyhough, E.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Fisher, Mrs,Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, South)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jonies,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Cohen, Stanley
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Coleman, Donald
Foley, Maurice
Jones, Barry (Flint, East)


Concannon, J. D.
Foot, Michael
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Conlan, Bernard
Ford, Ben
Judd, Frank


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Forrester, John
Kaufman, Gerald


Cox, Thomts (Wandsworth, Central)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kelley, Richard


Crawshaw, Richard
Freeson, Reginald
Kerr, Russell


Cronin, John
Galpern, Sir Myer
Kinnock, Nell







Lambie, David
Moyle, Roland
Skinner, Dennis


Lamond, James
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Small, William


Latham, Arthur
Murray, Ronald King
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, North)


Lawson, George
Ogden, Eric
Spearing, Nigel


Leadbirter, Ted
O'Halloran, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
O'Malley, Brian
Stallard, A. W.


Leonard, Dick
Oram, Bert
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Orbach, Maurice
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Orme, Stanley
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Oswald, Thomas
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Strang, Gavin


Lipton, Marcus
Padley, Walter
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lomas, Kenneth
Paget, R. T.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Loughlin, Charles
Palmer, Arthur
Swain, Thomas


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Taverne, Dick


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, East)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McBride, Neil
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


McCann, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Tinn, James


McCartney, Hugh
Pendry, Tom
Tomney, Frank


MacColl, James
Pentland, Norman
Torney, Tom


McElhone, Frank
Perry, Ernest G.
Tuck, Raphael


McGuire, Michael
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Urwin, T. W.


Mackenzie, Gregor
Prescott, John
Varley, Eric G.


Mackie, John
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wainwright, Edwin


Mackintosh, John P.
Price, William (Rugby)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Maclemtan, Robert
Probert, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rankin, John
Wallace, George


McNamara, J. Kevin
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Watkins, David


MacPherson, Malcolm
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Weitzman, David


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wellbeloved, James


Mallalieu, J. P. w. (Huddersfield, E.)
Richard, Ivor
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Marquand, David
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Whitehead, Phillip


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Whitlock, William


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roderick, CaerwynE.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Meacher, Michael
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Roper, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mendelson, John
Rose, Paul B.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mikardo, Ian
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Millan, Bruce
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wilson, WHIiam (Coventry, S.)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Woof, Robert


Molloy, William
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)



Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morris, Alfred (Wythemhawe)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Mr. William Hamling and


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Sillars, James
Mr. John Golding.


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Silverman, Julius

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Ways and Means, on the Civil Aviation (Declaratory Provisions) Bill and on the Local Authorities (Qualification of Members) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed. —[Mr. Pym.]

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to employers and workers and to organisations of employers and organisations of workers, to provide for the establishment of a National Industrial Relations Court and for extending the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals, to provide for the appointment of a Chief Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, and of assistant registrars, and for establishing a Commission on Industrial Relations as a statutory body, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(1) all expenses incurred by the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor in consequence of the provisions of that Act;
(2) any expenses incurred in consequence of those provisions by any other Minister of the Crown or government department, not


being a Minister in or department of the Government of Northern Ireland;
(3) the remuneration of, and any travelling or other allowances payable under that Act to, the Chief Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, any assistant registrar appointed under that Act and any other officers or servants of the Chief Registrar, and any expenses duly incurred by the Chief Registrar or any such assistant registrar in consequence of the provisions of that Act;
(4) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under the Industrial Courts Act 1919 or the Industrial Training Act 1964.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

WAYS AND MEANS

Industrial Relations

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to employers and workers and to organisations of employers and organisations of workers, to provide for the establishment of a National Industrial Relations Court and for extending the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals, to provide for the appointment of a Chief Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, and of assistant registrars, and for establishing a Commission on Industrial Relations as a statutory body, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) any change attributable to that Act in the incidence of the exemption from income tax and corporation tax which is conferred on registered trade unions by section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 in respect of income or chargeable gains

applied for the purpose of provident benefits within the meaning of that section;
(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums required to be so paid by virtue of the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkind.]

10.16 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): The Motion is necessary because the Bill has an effect on certain rights to exemption from income tax.
Under section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970, a registered trade union has a certain measure of exemption from tax in respect of income and chargeable gains applied for the purposes of provident benefit, and this will continue. But now the exemption will no longer apply to certain employers' associations which have hitherto been defined as trade unions but will now be separately defined. If it were decided to maintain the status quo and allow employers' associations to continue to enjoy the exemption, it would be necessary to extend the exemption by legislation to include employers' associations.
We do not think that many employers' associations are affected but if we find on inquiry that there are and there is some difficulty, I am sure that my right hon. Friends will be prepared to look at the matter. A large number of trade unions avail themselves of the exemption and will be able to continue to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

CIVIL AVIATION (DECLARATORY PROVISIONS) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: The Bill gives effect to the Government's doctrinal desire to force the Air Corporations, against their will, to surrender profitable routes to a private enterprise airline.
First, I should register objection that none of the Ministers responsible for the Bill from the Department for Trade and Industry or, in particular, the Minister of Aviation Supply is present. Perhaps the Leader of the House will explain why the Minister for Trade is not here to introduce the Third Reading of his own Bill.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whifelaw): The Bill was moved; I moved it. I am Leader of the House and I am entitled to move it. The right hon. Gentleman is now speaking.

Mr. Mason: Do I take it that the Minister does not intend to turn up and that he did not intend to introduce the Bill?

Mr. Whitelaw: There is no need to draw any conclusions other than what I have said.

Mr. Mason: Perhaps the Leader of the House would be good enough to give a fuller explanation of why no Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry is present when a Bill of that Department is before the House and due to be finally debated. Secondly, it is incumbent on the Minister to be present and to move the Third Reading himself because a Motion is before the House. Where is he? Why is no Minister present?

Mr. Whitelaw: I moved the Third Reading of the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman is now speaking. I will ensure that the Minister is here. Let the right hon. Gentleman continue to speak.

Mr. Mason: Do I take it that the Leader of the House is prepared to reply to the debate? The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Trade is not here and will not be aware of my comments, but it is he whom I wish to reply to the debate. The Leader of the House has no knowledge of civil aviation.

Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman will be here. If he is not, I will reply to the debate.

Mr. Mason: I think it is disgraceful that the Minister for Trade, who is responsible for the Bill, is not here. There are five Ministers in the Department for Trade and Industry; why is no Minister present? As no Minister is present, I suggest that the Leader of the House could be gentlemanly and move that the House be adjourned until the Minister is present.

Mr. William Molloy: On a point of order. Can you help us, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Is it possible for the House to conduct the business in hand when the responsible Minister is not here? It would seem to be a pointless endeavour.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Thomas Swain: Further to that point of order. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House gave a categorical assurance to the House five weeks ago that he would guarantee that the Minister responsible would be present when a debate was taking place, but the Minister was not present at the commencement of this debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that also is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Mason: I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has now arrived, but it has been disgraceful conduct on his part that, knowing full well that a debate for which he was responsible was imminent, neither he nor his right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade was present at the outset of the debate. As I have begun, I intend to carry on.
The Civil Aviation (Declaratory Provisions) Bill gives effect to the Government's doctrinal desire to force the Air corporations, against their will, to surrender profitable routes to a private enter-price airline. This is a disgraceful and shabby exercise which is indicative of the hate that the Tory Party has of successful nationalised industries, and it is typical of the pique of Tory Party philosophy.
The Bill, which gives the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the unprecedented power of determining which routes B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. shall operate, also empowers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Gentlemen leaving the Chamber please do so as quietly as possible.

Mr. Mason: —them to pick off any flight or series of flights and, without any compensation to the corporations, give them away to any private enterprise airline. The Bill is designed to wound the corporations, especially at a time when their finances and indeed the finances of civil aviation as a whole, are on a cyclical decline.
The Bill is dangerous for three reasons. First, the Government recognising that it was doubtful whether they had the necessary powers under the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960, and the Air Corporations Act, 1967, and that these doubts were being challenged by the Corporations and, in particular, were to be tested in the court by the trade unions, have brought in the Bill to forestall litigation and stifle the normal legal processes. This is indicative of the lengths to which they will go to help their friends, the private speculators, and on this occasion it includes foreign speculators as well. Having obliterated any court action, they determined that no appeal is to be allowed against these route transfers. That in itself is a dangerous act.
Secondly, on the route transfer operations we are bound to question the impact of the Bill abroad. Some nations already fear a lessening of British interests overseas because the Bill gives the Government the right unilaterally to transfer routes from a State airline to a doubtful private enterprise venture. So far we do not know the routes or the nations

involved. So far the Minister has not yet been able to reveal this to the House either during the Second Reading of the Bill or in Committee. Yet this information has been passed from B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. to the Department of Trade and industry; it has been sent on to Caledonian and B.U.A. for them to choose the routes which they think the most profitable so that they can get their £6 million of annual route revenue from the corporations.
However, there have been "leaks" in the Press and it appears that the Paris routes, as well as flights to Portugal, West Africa, and Gibraltar, may all be affected. All these countries will assume that there is a lessening of British interest in their affairs, but particularly in civil aviation development. If these route transfers mentioned in the Bill are effected, is it not likely that the reaction of these nations will be to encourage another foreign national airline to develop routes within their nation and pooling operations in their countries? Consequently, there will be a loss to British civil aviation development, a loss of foreign exchange and stronger competition from foreign airlines.
All these transfers of routes will take place without payment of compensation. We are not just transferring a licence. There is the task involved in the development of a route, international advertising, the development of facilities en route and the growth of good will. There is all the effort that has been put into making a loss into a profit and there is the subsequent profitability growth in the route itself. All these are to be taken away without any compensation.
Do the Government realise what a dangerous precedent they are establishing? This matter will not be overlooked. They have started on the airlines. They may tinker with steel, coal, the Post Office Corporation. But in this Bill they are now setting a pattern of confiscation without compensation.
We have already warned all those concerned in this venture—all those who take these routes from B.O.A.C and B.E.A. without compensation and who during subsequent years will have profited thereby—that on returning to office we reserve the right to transfer them back without any compensation at all.
This is the first of the hiving off operations. This Bill is only the beginning of this particular operation. It establishes beyond legal doubt the right of the Secretary of State to effect route transfers to the detriment of the corporations and for the benefit of private speculators.

Mr. Russell Kerr: It is a blank cheque.

Mr. Mason: We do not yet know how many routes will be involved, how many flights will be affected, or how many foreign nations will be concerned.
It is incumbent upon the Minister, before the Bill goes through—before giving it what my hon. Friend just called a "blank cheque"—to inform the House which routes making up the £6 million annual route revenue of both Corporations will go to this private venture airline.
But that will not be the end of the matter. The Orders still have to be laid, and the Minister will have to come back to the House. Because the principle embodied in this operation is so basically rotten and anti-democratic and creates a precedent of confiscation without compensation which future Governments can easily follow, we shall oppose those Orders throughout, just as I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends tonight to reject the Bill absolutely.

10.30 p.m.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): I rise with embarrassment. I think that the whole House knows that I should not want to be discourteous. I was only a few yards from the Chamber. I was not expecting the Bill to be called quite so quickly. I hope the House will accept that as a genuine apology. These things do occasionally happen, even when one is ready and prepared.
Third Reading tonight is the third debate that we have had on almost the same point, because this is a one Clause Bill. We discussed it on Second Reading, on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill in Committee, and now we are discussing it on Third Reading, Therefore, I should like to repeat two or three things which I have said before which cannot be changed in any way on the third occasion.
First, the Bill does not convey any new powers on anybody; it simply re-

moves the possibility of delay. This may be objectional to those who perhaps wanted to use delay as a method of defeating the particular purpose of the Bill.
Secondly, the scale of transfers is comparatively modest. It is easy to talk about £6 million of route revenue. But when we realise that B.O.A.C. alone has an annual route revenue of over £200 million, and in normal times expects and plans for its route revenue to increase by 14 or 15 per cent., the whole matter is put in its proper proportions.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every major airline in the world is now revising its revenue expectation very seriously downwards, and that most of the major carriers are talking about as little as 5 per cent., and certainly less than 10 per cent.? For the right hon. Gentleman to talk of 14 per cent. tonight shows a gross ignorance of the facts of the situation.

Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman is not being fair. I said that that was what B.O.A.C. had been calculating in normal times. I accept that at the moment the situation is changing, that the route revenue is not rising as fast as was expected, but B.O.A.C. is still in the long term making its calculations on the same basis. Whatever calculation is made, even if one accepts the hon. Gentleman's 5 to 10 per cent., it is still a very small part of the revenue of one major British undertaking.
I promised the right hon. Gentleman that at the first possible moment I would give him and the House the information that was available on route transfers. It has been decided that a part of the route transfers will take place. I cannot yet give a complete answer, but 1 can say tonight that B.O.A.C. will cease after 31st March 1971 to serve Lagos and Kano in Nigeria and Accra in Ghana, with the intention that Caledonian-B.U.A. should serve them directly from London thereafter. The authorities of Nigeria and Ghana have been so informed.
There will be some other part of this transfer to be negotiated, and we are discussing it still with the airlines concerned. But I felt that it was right to tell the House at the first moment


when a decision had been taken on part of it. It is right because there has been speculation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not believe all the stories he reads in the Press. Some of them are not even faintly founded on fact and some of them are certainly ideas which have been considered. That is the extent of the route transfers that has been agreed so far, and I am announcing them to the House on the first possible opportunity tonight.

Mr. Mason: What percentage of the £6 million of annual route revenue is represented by the right hon. Gentleman's announcement? What anxieties have Nigeria and Ghana expressed about private enterprise taking over from State airlines in the region?

Mr. Noble: Without breaking commercial confidences—a point that the right hon. Gentleman has made to me once or twice—I cannot say exactly what the route revenue on this line is, but I can say that the West African link is well below the figure I have given to the House, and there will therefore be some balance to be added on top.
We have informed the authorities in Nigeria and Ghana, and have had no expression of anxiety about the lessening of British interest to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
There may be other hon. Members who want to speak. The debate has taken place on three occasions, on roughly the same subjects, and I know that there is no reasonable opportunity of persuading hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is a sensible policy. But I hope that the House will realise that this is not done with the sinister motives the right hon. Gentleman chooses to impute to us. A very distinguished Committee recommended it. The right hon. Gentleman and his friend did not dispute the broad principle, but they were rather unwilling to will the means to make it a success.
I commend this small Bill to the House and wish success to the new British second force which will be operating.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. John Golding: I oppose the Bill, because I see it as part of the Conservative policy of transferring money from the public purse

to the rich. In the mini-Budget, we saw a transfer of money from the poor to the rich, and now we see a transfer of money from the public purse to the rich. That is precisely what the Bill will do. The Government are putting their hands into the public purse and taking out money which rightfully belongs to the British public. They will hand it over to a tiny fraction of the population, the financiers. Every hon. Member opposite realises, with great cynicism, that that is the purpose of this Bill and of this Government.
One important political commentator, a supporter in general of the Tory Party, wrote in The Times that he was not surprised. None of us should be surprised that a party supported by the City and by financiers should, on coming to office, reward its friends. We must accept, as a consequence of defeat, that the Government will take our money and give it to their friends.
The statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), that we "reserved the right" not to pay compensation, was not strong enough. There should be no compensation after confiscation of this sort. It is like letting someone steal one's wallet and then paying him compensation when one recovers it. Let us oppose compensation—but let us think further. Since 1945, many of us in the Labour Party have supported the idea of compensation, but I am having second thoughts about it. If it is right for hon. Gentlemen opposite to confiscate public goods, why should we consider the payment of compensation when we extend public ownership? They have opened up this whole question. When we extend public ownershop, we shall remember this night.
I will not be too long: I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite have uneasy consciences and I would not want to make them too uncomfortable. But let them remember the consequences of their action tonight for the future. We will remember this terrible Bill for many years to come.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I too oppose the Bill. The Government's powers in Clause 1 are not borne out by what the Minister said about the transfer of certain routes. One of the


purposes of the Bill is to promote competition, but the routes which are being transferred are international routes on which there is already a great deal of competition for our nationalised airlines from national airlines overseas. It is to be hoped that the Government will transfer some domestic routes as well and not leave the second force airline in a monopoly situation. That would be a negation of competition, though we suspect that that is what the Government have in mind.
We do not know how the figure of £6 million worth of routes was arrived at. As the right hon. Gentleman admitted in Committee, it is difficult to forecast profitability, taking account of, for example, loading factors, distances, frequency and so on. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to repeat the assurance he gave in Committee that this is to be a once-for-all transfer. We must be certain that if the airline does not make a profit following this transfer, the Government will not say that more must be handed over. I say this because it seems doubtful whether this £6 million worth of routes will achieve what the airline and the Department expect.
I do not agree with my hon. Friends who say that this transfer represents a rape of this public corporation. Rather, it is a case of indecent assault. The Government are putting their hands into the pockets of a prosperous and profitable nationalised industry, and it is to be hoped that they do not repeat this crime.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one does not commit indecent assault by putting one's hands in someone's pockets? That is common robbery. The hon. Gentleman should be conversant with the facts of life.

Mr. Deakins: At least the hon. Gentleman agrees that a crime has been committed. We can agree to disagree about its exact nature.

Mr. Molloy: The hon. Member for Epping seems to be an authority on indecent assault and many other pernicious activities.

Mr. Deakins: I had better leave the matter there.
We have reason to believe that the Government do not have the courage of

their convictions. I would be out of order in mentioning the clearing bank monopoly and so on. What they are proposing could lead to greater competition in the air, but we are afraid that it will merely mean the replacement of one monopoly situation with another, with in due course, the Government saying that as the second force has failed to make a profit, more must be transferred to it. May we be assured that this is a once-for-all assault on this prosperous and profitable nationalised industry?

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I will not delay the House, though certain points bear repetition. For example, if the Government wanted to do less damage to B.O.A.C., they could have legalised hijacking, for that is the situation being faced by this State-owned corporation under the Bill.
For the Government to be taking this step now is astonishing. For them to do it at a time of prosperity for airlines would be dangerous. But for them to be doing it at a time when every international carrier is facing financial tremendous difficulties is suicidal.
I have just returned from Los Angeles—[Interruption.] Why hon. Gentlemen opposite find that something to interrupt about I do not know. At least I try to find out what I am talking about. I saw some of the problems being faced by Pan-Am and T.W.A. with layoffs, attempts to sell aircraft and a general background of recession. In trying to fit this Measure into that sort of context, we see the complete and utter ignorance on the part of Her Majesty's Government in civil aviation matters.
It comes, too, at a time when one of our nationalised Corporations is doing sterling pioneering work in lowering fares, because at the recent Honolulu fares conference it was B.O.A.C. which was setting the pace and trying to reduce individual fares. Again, it is the public who will suffer.
I am now wondering whether we are starting to move towards the American situation in which, if an airline wants routes it must contribute to the presidential funds—[Interruption.] It is well known in the States that certain American airlines are Democrat and others are Republican. It has been made quite obvious to the House and the country


that British United and Caledonian have not contributed to the coffers of the Labour Party, and we now have the situation where a contribution has been made to the coffers of the Tory Party. There is evidence of this on record, and gentlemen in the City expect to receive their pay-off too. I am wondering just what their campaign—

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking): rose—

Mr. Huckfield: No, I will give way when I have made my speech. This is information that is listed as a result of legislation passed by the previous Government, and I am wondering how big will be the campaign contribution of B.U.A. and Caledonian next time.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) is doing himself justice as usual. I might remind him that if he wants to make party political points he should remember that Caledonian-B.U.A. have on its board a former Member who was a Government Whip in the last Administration.

Mr. Huckfield: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that that alters the fact that the British and Commonwealth made a substantial contribution to the Tory Party last time I cannot agree with him. But if we are not to have the kind of campaign situation in which airlines thus contribute and thereby get a substitution of routes, presumably we shall have the kind of situation in which there will be increased competition on certain routes; in fact, precisely the sort of policy which American, Australian and every other major aviation country is now rejecting. All over the world it is being proved that competition is the wrong way to do things.
I wonder how Ghana Airways, with one VC 10 and a few Viscounts, and Nigerian Airways with two 707s will fare? Those two airlines owe a great deal to B.O.A.C., and now they are to have that aid taken from them they will have to depend on Caledonian-B.U.A. I cannot think of any greater insult to any country.
The Government are now flying in the face of aviation policy all over the world. Every country is saying it will not have such competition, because competition does not work. The Government choose

to ignore all international evidence and go completely against the grain. Perhaps as the Government are now showing what they really are we should not be amazed. I urge the total rejection of this very obnoxious Bill.

Sir John Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman has talked about the absence of competition everywhere. Is there absence of competition in America?

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I intervene because many of my constituents are employees of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. and are deeply anxious about this step that the Government are taking to forestall legal objections which might come from the Corporations. B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. workers are jealous of the conditions and traditions that they have built up over a long period. They are fearful that the result of this handing over of profitable routes of nationalised enterprises will be that their conditions will deteriorate and that profitability will suffer These anxieties are well understood by Ministers. Nothing that is occurring is likely to allay the deep anxieties my constituents have or still the coming opposition to this reduction in the activities of nationalised airways. Nor will it banish from their minds the thought that this is a continuation of doctrinaire politics.
If there were an abstract referendum about the incursion of law into industrial affairs, most people, not knowing much about it, would vote for the idea. If they were asked to say if they believed that an independent civil air force should be created at the expense of the nationalised sector, the answer would be a resounding "No", because B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. are regarded as national assets of which the nation should be proud.
I will not become involved in the argument as to whether this is rape or an indecent assault. It reminds me of the maidservant who produced an illegitimate child and who, when taxed about it, said, "It is only a little bastard, after all". This is a small Measure, but it is what it portends that is important. This is why we shall vote against it. This is also why this and the other are of Measures that the Government are taking will lead to their downfall, because as time passes what tended to be obscure will become crystal clear: these


are rewards for financial backing for the Tory Party.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I should not like it to be thought that my hon. Friends do anything but welcome the Third Reading of the Bill, wish success to the second force airline that springs from it, and see in this Measure a sensible and constructive action which is essential to the future strength and prosperity of British civil aviation. I do not want to provoke the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr), so I will not go further than that. I will simply say that we know that we disagree on this.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) made it perfectly plain for the third time. He made the same speech with slightly different emphasis—the loud pedal, louder in some places, softer in others. Essentially it was the same speech, with the same misunderstandings and the same fundamental incomprehension of the real issues involved. It is clear that we shall never get them into his head. By all means let him oppose the Orders when they are laid before the House, but let him not make that speech again.
Having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), I well understand the anxiety of the Opposition Chief Whip to curtail debate on his side of the House, because I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has ever favoured us with a more characteristically silly speech.
We congratulate my right hon. Friends on their good sense in introducing this Measure. We believe that it will succeed. We wish Calendonian-B.U.A. success.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: When hon. Members became aware that the Minister for Trade might have forgotten about this debate, some of us thought for a moment that at last the right hon. Gentleman's conscience had been awakened and that he did not wish to be part of a piece of legislation which is no more than legalised robbery. However, our hopes were dashed when the right hon. Gentleman came in and courageously apologised for his late arrival, which I am sure the House accepts.
Earlier today, we were discussing the very important subject of industrial relations. There are many ordinary men and women who have spent their lives working for B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., and hundreds of them live in my constituency—[Interruption.] A number of hon. Gentlemen opposite apparently find it funny that working men and women should be interested in a publicly-owned industry—

Mr. James Hill: Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test) rose—

Mr. Molloy: I advise the hon. Gentleman to sit down and continue with his laughter.
The employees of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. feel very strongly about these proposals. I do not ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree with them, but they should acknowledge the strength of feeling among those working for the corporations, and one would expect the Ministers concerned to take it into account.
The quintessence of the argument is that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want to give away part of a publicly-owned industry to certain private interests, whereas we on this side of the House believe that this massive industry should be owned by the people, just as the railways and the extraction and coal mining industries are.
None of the people who have written to me have complained that they have not been offered a chunk of the assets which are to be given away, that they have been denied the chance to climb on the band wagon. They have written to me deploring the Government's proposals, which will upset two great organisations and, at the same time, rob the majority of the people and benefit a small minority.
It would be interesting to hear right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite explain how this Measure fits in with their aim of creating one nation. This is part of the supreme hypocrisy that we have experienced since the present Government came to office. They argue that they wish to unite the people. At the same time, they introduce this sort of Measure which is designed specifically to give financial advantage to a tiny minority who may be their political supporters, at


the expense of the vast majority of ordinary people.
This is a crime which will stain the record of this Government for ever. If they have any sense, they will not try to make foolish capital out of running down ordinary men and women who work for our nationalised airlines. If they do, they will face an eruption which is far greater than anything that they anticipate.
Many working people have devoted their lives to B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. They believe in the principle of public ownership. They want only to enhance the status of our national airlines. They are responsible people with a point of view. If the Government fail to acknowledge these facts and behave like some hon. Members on the benches behind them, they will stir up a great deal of trouble for themselves.
This Bill is taking a large portion of publicly-owned property from the mass of the people and giving it to a few friends of the Conservative Party. If that is not the case, I hope that the Government will say so, and that this is merely an example of their philosophy of encouraging competition. Let them ensure also that, if this element of competition fails, as well it may, they do not then turn back to the nation which they have exploited and expect it to support financially the failure which they have created.
Even at this late hour, let the Government consider whether what they are doing is right and proper in the present industrial atmosphere. Let them think again about the Bill and withdraw it. If they do not, we on this side will register our protest by voting against it.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. James Hill: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) tried to give the impression that there is no one on this side with the slightest inkling of the work not only of B.O.A.C. but of the men on the ground at the various outposts of the Corporation. He ought to know that on this side of the House we are rich in former members of B.O.A.C. staff who fully understand the structure and the working of a major airline.
The hon. Gentleman seems to think that a wagon of gold bars is being handed over to Caledonia-B.U.A. It is nothing of the sort. It is a series of licences, and it is up to CaledonianB.U.A., by its efficiency and skill in the market in which it has professional proficiency, to turn that series of licences into gold bars. Not until the airline does that will it be a source of revenue.
The hon. Gentleman suggested also that the B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. ground staff wanted a slice of the cake, as he put it. He ought to realise that what is now being done will produce more work and more prosperity in civil aviation. If only the hon. Gentleman will look at it like that, welcoming the prospect of additional work for members of the unions associated with civil aviation, he will, I am sure, wish to put an entirely different slant on his views in twelve month's time.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: I have not taken part in any of the discussion on the Bill, and I shall not go into it now, but I have a couple of questions to put to the Government.
Caledonian-B.U.A. makes a great fuss of the Caledonian part of it. It parades its stewardesses in tartan, it has the thistle painted on its aircraft and all over the place, and, I believe—though I do not often travel by Caledonian—it makes a fuss of the haggis in certain circumstances. It even makes some fuss of Drambuie, a very good drink, I agree.
Since this is considered to be first and foremost a Scottish line—we are told of the great fellow Thomson, where he came from, and what he has done—I should like to know more about where the maintenance work of Caledonian-B.U.A. is carried out. Is it to be carried out in Scotland? My understanding is that under Caledonian a substantial amount of maintenance was carried out there and that it is being transferred south. I am not professing to be knowledgeable about this and I hope that I am wrong. I am asking for information.
I hope that a company which flouts—perhaps that is not the right word—which makes so much use of the thistle and the tartan and the bagpipes and such things, will ensure that this maintenance work is done in Scotland. I hope that the Minister will tell us what is to


happen and that he will not say that this is a matter entirely for the private concern. He must understand that this concern owes its existence to what is happening under this Government. Clearly there is a need to provide air services in various remote parts of the Highlands of Scotland—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I do not think that the Highlands of Scotland has a great deal to do with the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will keep to the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Lawson: We are talking about Caledonian-B.U.A. and I understand that we are talking about routes and about growth. Surely the justification for what is happening here is that this is a company which will grow. It will not be satisfied with a couple of routes, it will take more and more, show its competency, and it is on this basis that I would like to know from the Minister, who knows so much about these things, whether this concern has indicated its desire to take over some of the routes in the highlands of Scotland and if so which routes. It is a reasonable proposition. Perhaps if it were to take over some of these routes they would become highly profitable and no one would be happier than I if that happened. This is not very much to ask.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Perhaps I could tell the hon. Member for Mother-well (Mr. Lawson) that B.O.A.C. also makes a lot of haggis and bagpipes and such things on certain occasions and perhaps he should travel on that airline and know about it. It does very little maintenance at Prestwick. I was surprised by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) who, if I caught his meaning correctly, and it is sometimes difficult to do so, said that there are people who want nothing from this, referring to the staff of the nationalised industries—have I got the hon. Member correctly?

Mr. Molloy: What I was trying to explain, and I realise that sometimes it needs a surgical operation to get something into the heads of hon. Members opposite, was simply this, that when the Government decided to carve up B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. many of the ordinary

people in my constituency did not want to get in on the act of grabbing something for themselves. They believed that they were right in supporting the principles of public ownership.

Mr. Tebbit: I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he had gone rather further and suggested that such was their loyalty that they would never ask for anything for themselves from the airlines. I wondered whether he was aware that there is a go-slow at London Airport because of a demand for extra money. I was deeply shocked by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) who, I am glad to see, is on one of his periodic visits to us from Los Angeles, and who had such kindly words for Nigerian Airways. If he is not aware he should be aware that that airline in particular is in scandalous breach of contract by which it is still refusing, a year after the accident to its VC10, to pay compensation, which it admits that it is contractually liable to pay, to the dependants of the dead crew members. Hon. Members opposite may care to note that it is not a privately-owned airline.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not in the Bill. The hon. Member must keep to the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Tebbit: I return, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the point which I have raised three times and to which I have had no answer. If it is right to compensate when a route licence is taken from one airline to another—that is, when the right to operate on a particular sector of the market, which is defined territorially in this one case, is transferred—why did the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) not think it right to compensate the independent airlines when he unleashed on them B.E.A. Airtours into the sector of the market in which, to use his own words, there had been a cost of advertising, of investment and of making up with profits which they had lost before running into profits? If it is sauce for the goose it is sauce for the gander. This is the third time of asking. Perhaps on this, the third time, we will have an answer to this problem.
We know full well that this Declaratory Provisions Bill is detested so much by right hon. and hon. Members opposite solely because it gives a fair


crack of the whip to the sector of industry which they detest. That is all that is required of the Bill. It is all that ever has been required of it, and the right hon. Gentleman knew that full well when he agreed with the principle of the second-force airline. The only thing with which he does not agree is the principle of giving it enough business on which to live.
I have great faith in Caledonian and British United, and it is most welcome to have the opportunity of seeing this Declaratory Provisions Bill make up for a lot of lost ground in the air transport industry.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) will forgive me if I do not follow him into his argument, because I cannot believe that he himself believed everything that he was asking the House to believe.
I should like to make two points to the Minister for Trade. I think I am correct in assuming that when he came to the House, he said that he commended the Bill for Third reading even though, he thought, it might be construed by some as robbery, but that as it was only small-scale robbery we should let it go through this time and not worry too much about it.
Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman was right when he said that this was almost the third Second Reading of the Bill. It had a mercifully short Committee stage, because it rarely happens that a Bill can be so bad as this one is that it was impossible to improve it in Committee. In Committee, however, the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that there were three parts to Clause 1 and that the purpose of the Bill was simply these three purposes: to establish the second force on the basis of a transplant from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., to make sure that it was effectively impossible for B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. to make any appeals to the courts about the transfer of those routes and, by so doing, to make it possible to bring the second force into operation at least 12 months sooner than it would otherwise have been possible to bring it into operation.
A number of questions were put to the Minister in Committee about the kind

of considerations that were engaging his mind about the type of routes. He may remember that I asked whether he was looking at only the profitable routes or only those routes which made a reasonable, practical operational basis, or whether he was looking at both profitable routes, marginal routes and those routes that were operationally linked and which could form a full package.
This morning the papers have been coming out with their leaks and have been talking of hiving off or transferring routes from B.E.A., and the routes being mentioned this morning were those from the United Kingdom to Paris. We have not before had a lot of talk about B.E.A. In the main, the emphasis has been on B.O.A.C., and no one can deny that the United Kingdom to Paris route should be very profitable. Whoever is to answer tonight will, I hope, give an indication and more information than before about the kind of package deal he is considering when he makes this transfer.
Time is now getting to the point where we could expect the Conservative Government to have an idea of what they want to do. It was reasonable to assume before that they had not worked out their ideas aright but had a number of things in mind. Maybe we are expected to wait another month for an announcement during the recess. Instead of deciding Third Reading on the basis of all the information, we are expected to decide it on the basis of a small part of the information.
The Minister has told us about Ghana and Nigeria. Will he repeat his guarantee that he is seriously considering operational routes: profitable, marginal and non-profitable routes, not just the profitable ones?

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Russell Kerr: I shall be brief because, as the Grand Old Man of British civil aviation the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said, we have been round the course three times.
I should like to refer to a remark of the Minister who said, when referring to the routes to be transferred, that the £6 million of gross revenue was only a small part of the total B.A.O.C. revenue of something like £200 million. They are picking the plums out of the cake. These are not to be just any routes, but no


doubt the most profitable routes from the point of view of the new airline.
On the repercussive effects of these proposals, I shall use the same example as I did on Second Reading. What happens now we know that the West African routes are to be transferred? American customers used to come by B.O.A.C. and transfer at Heathrow, going on to their destinations in West Africa. Some will still try the same route, and if they are foolhardy enough to want to travel British will have a messy transfer from Heathrow to Gatwick to get their West Africa-bound plane. This is the kind of consequence which this Government in their ignorance and greed have totally left out of account in their haste to pay their debts to their backers in the City and elsewhere. [Interruption.] I shall go on. I could go on all night.
I resist the temptation from hon. Gentlemen opposite because I prefer to touch finally on the effects of these proposals, of this grand larceny, on the people who have built up this British civil aviation industry into one of the great industries of this country and the premier civil aviation industry of the world. The workers at London Airport and elsewhere who work for the two great public corporations are, to put it mildly, aghast at what the Government are doing to them. For example, in the G.A.S. dispute, which still continues but which reached something of a climax last February, when 14,000 people turned up on a one-day protest at Brentford football stadium—

Mr. Tebbit: Mr. Tebbit rose—

Mr. Kerr: I will not give way. It is late in the evening and I am deliberately being brief. The hon. Member and I will have a chat later.
If the Government imagine that they are helping the prosperity of British civil aviation by measures of this sort, they must think again. The people who will cause them trouble are the people who rightly feel that their job security is being imperilled by these proposals. Many of them have worked and slaved for 25 years to build these twin nationalised industries into what they are today. They will not stand by and watch the profit-hungry friends of hon. Members opposite dismantle the whole caboosh without a struggle.
If it is the Government's objective—and it is up to them to say whether it is—to build a sound, prosperous civil aviation industry for this country, all I can say to them is, "Watch your step because the way you are going you will guarantee the hostility of the 60,000 people in the industry. You still have time to think again about this larceny on a grand scale. If you do not, then, speaking as one of the parliamentary spokesmen for airport workers at London Airport—

Mr. Tebbit: May I make it plain that the hon. Gentleman does not speak for all the workers at the airport by a very long chalk. [Interruption.] I am sorry for the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy). I am a member of one of the unions involved there which is not opposing this Bill nor did it take industrial action over the G.A.S. affair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interruptions, to be effective, should be brief.

Mr. Kerr: I will not be tempted by the hon. Gentleman to go further, except to say that I, too, am a member, an executive member, of an airline union, which represents a lot more members than his organisation.
There will be big trouble if right hon. and hon. Members opposite, in their ignorance of the industry and of its great traditions, are allowed to go ahead with their proposals. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will show their determination by voting against the Third Reading.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Noble: With permission, I should like to answer two or three of the points raised in the debate. I want to answer the points made by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), who had not taken part in debates on the Bill before and therefore had not made the same speech on three separate occasions.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I am delighted to see a company which started in Scotland doing well. The question whether maintenance work will be done in Scotland is not clear. Caledonian having taken over B.U.A. has maintenance shops at Gatwick, which is at the moment its centre of operations. But, as the hon. Member may guess and as


many people who know him realise, Mr. Thomson has built his success in Scotland, and if there are opportunities there I am sure that he will take them. He has not yet applied for any air routes in the Highlands. If he does, I am sure that we shall give him, through the normal processes, every possible consideration, and I hope that he makes some profit from them.
Most of the speeches have been made before. I should like simply to repeat the one or two assurances I have given before and which cannot be given too often. First, this is a once for all transfer by this Government for this particular purpose. I have said this probably four or five times, and, if it is any comfort to people, I will say it again.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) is worried about competition in almost the same way as his hon. Friend is worried about the absence of it. I quite accept that there are difficulties both ways. Both Caledonian, B.U.A. and B.O.A.C. are at the moment jointly asking for lower fares in I.A.T.A. and are being opposed by foreign airlines.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I would not like the right hon. Gentleman to mislead the House. He will correct me if I am wrong, but Caledonian is not even a member of I.A.T.A.

Mr. Noble: All I was told was that Caledonian/B.U.A. are jointly seeking lower fares.
I will end by referring to the relevant point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), although I

Division No. 46.]
AYES
11.33 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Boscawen, H. T.
Clark, William (Surrey, East)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bowden, Andrew
Clegg, Walter


Astor, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cockeram, Eric


Atkins, Humphrey
Braine, Bernard
Cooke, Robert


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bray, Ronald
Coombs, Derek


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Brewis, John
Cooper, A. E.


Balniel, Lord
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Batsford. Brian
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Cormack, Patrick


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Costain, A. P.


Bell, Ronald
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Critchley, Julian


Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Crouch, David


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Buck, Antony
Crowder, F. P.


Benyon, W.
Bullus, Sir Eric
Curran, Charles


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Biffen, John
Carlisle, Mark
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Biggs-Davison, John
Chapman, Sydney
Dean, Paul


Blaker, Peter
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Body, Richard
Churchill, W. S.
Dixon, Piers

think he got it seriously wrong. I have known many industries—for example, the railways—which were at one time in private enterprise and became nationalised and seemed to be moving backwards and forwards. It is vital for the success of any industry, whether private or nationalised, to have the loyalty and support of its staff. In all the months when we have been connected with Caledonian and B.U.A. I have seen nothing to indicate that the staff are not as likely to feel just as strongly about Caledonian/B.U.A. as B.O.A.C. staff feel about their airline. When this new operation starts I am certain that its success will be assured in direct relationship to the way in which the staff feel themselves to be part of the new airline. I am certain that this is also Mr. Thomson's view.

Mr. Ogden: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he say whether there is any truth in reports that he is considering transferring or has already decided to transfer from B.E.A. to the new force United Kingdom to Paris routes? He is very good at saying that time and time again he has given certain assurances, and he is equally good at refusing to answer questions which have been asked time and time again.

Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman knows quite well—and I have been perfectly frank with the House and in Committee—that we have looked at a number of routes of all descriptions. It is right to announce to the House what is decided and not what has been looked at.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 221.

Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kershaw, Anthony
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kilfedder, James
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Drayson, G. B.
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dykes, Hugh
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Elliot, Capt. Walter(Carshalton)
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Emery, Peter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Eyre, Reginald
Knox, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fell, Anthony
Lane, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fanner, Mrs. Peggy
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rost, Peter


Fidler, Michael
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Royle, Anthony


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Le Marchant, Spencer
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Scott, Nicholas


Fortescue, Tim
Longden, Gilbert
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fowler, Norman
Loveridge, John
Sharpies, Richard


Fox, Marcus
MacArthur, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fry, Peter
McCrindle, R. A.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McLaren, Martin
Simeons, Charles


Gibson-Watt, David
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Soref, Harold


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Speed, Keith


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Spence, John


Goodhart, Philip
Madel, David
Sproat, Iain


Gorst, John
Marten, Neil
Stainton, Keith


Gower, Raymond
Mather, Carol
Stanbrook, Ivor


Grant, Antony (Harrow, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Steel, David


Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Green, Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Stodart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Miscampbell, Norman
Stokes, John


Gryils, Michael
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gummer, Selwyn
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tapsell, Peter


Gurden, Harold
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Molyneaux, James
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Money, Ernie
Tebbit, Norman


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Temple, John M.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Montgomery, Fergus
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
More, Jasper
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Haselhurst, Alan
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Hastings, Stephen
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Tilney, John


Havers, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hay, John
Mudd, David
Trew, Peter


Hayhoe, Barney
Murton, Oscar
Tugendhat, Christopher


Heseltine, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hicks, Robert
Neave, Airey
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Higgins, Terence L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hiley, Joseph
Normanton, Tom
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Nott, John
Walters, Dennis


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Onslow, Cranley
Ward, Dame Irene


Holt, Miss Mary
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Warren, Kenneth


Hooson, Emlyn
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Weatherill, Bernard


Hordern, Peter
Osborn, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Howell, David (Guildford)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Percival, Ian
Wilkinson, John


Hunt, John
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pounder, Rafton
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


James, David
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Woodnutt, Mark


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Worsley, Marcus


Jessel, Toby
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Younger, Hn. George


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis



Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Raison, Timothy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jopling, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Redmond, Robert
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Kellett. Mrs. Elaine






NOES


Abse, Leo
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carmichael, Nell


Albu, Austen
Boardman, H. (Leith)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Booth, Albert
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Tom
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Cohen, Stanley


Barnes, Michael
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Coleman, Donald


Barnett, Joel
Brown,Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Concannon, J. D.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Buchan, Norman
Conlan, Bernard


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bishop, E. S.
Cant, R. B.
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pendry, Tom


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davits, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Prescott, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Judd, Frank
Probert, Arthur


Deakins, Eric
Kaufman, Gerald
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


do Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kelley, Richard
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kerr, Russell
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Doig, Peter
Lambie, David
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lawson, George
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Leadbitter, Ted
Roper, John


Dunn, James A.
Leonard, Dick
Rose, Paul B.


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Ellis, Tom
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)


English, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Evans, Fred
Mabon, Dr. J, Dickson
Sillars, James


Fernyhough, E.
McBride, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
McCann, John
Skinner, Dennis


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCartney, Hugh
Small, William


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
McElhone, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McGuire, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stallard, A. W.


Foley, Maurice
Mackie, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Foot, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Strang, Gavin


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Gilbert, Dr. John
Marquand, David
Swain, Thomas


Ginsburg, David
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Taverne, Dick


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Meacher, Michael
Tinn, James


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tomney, Frank


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, John
Torney, Tom


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mikardo, Ian
Tuck, Raphael


Hamling, William
Millan, Bruce
Urwin, T. W.


Hardy, Peter
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Varley, Eric G.


Harper, Joseph
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Molloy, William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wallace, George


Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watkins, David


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Weitzman, David


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Wellbeloved, James


Hilton, W. S.
Moyle, Roland
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Horam, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Murray, Ronald King
Whitehead, Philip


Huckfield, Leslie
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hunter, Adam
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Woof, Robert


Janner, Greville
Palmer, Arthur



Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Mr. John Golding and


John, Brynmor
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Kenneth Marks.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFI- CATION OF MEMBERS) BILL (changed from LOCAL GOVERN- MENT (QUALIFICATION OF COUNCILLORS) BILL)

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

RIGHT TO INSPECT NOMINATION PAPERS, ETC.

(1) After rule 10 of the Local Elections Rules in Schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act 1949 there shall be inserted the following rule:—
'10A. Any person may, at all reasonable times after the latest time for the delivery of nomination papers and before the day of election, inspect and take copies of and extracts from nomination papers and consents to nomination.'.
(2) After Rule 9 of the Scottish Local Election Rules in Schedule 3 to the Representation of the People Act 1949 there shall be inserted the following rule:

'Right to inspect nomination papers
9A. Any person may, at all reasonable times after the latest time for the delivery of nomination papers and before the day of election, inspect and take copies of and extracts from nomination papers.'.

—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause results from a point raised by the Opposition in Committee, that electors might not know the basis on which someone standing for election to the local council was eligible.
At present, when the basis of qualification is residence, the person's name would normally appear on the electoral roll. In those few cases where a person had a qualification of residence but his name did not appear on the electoral roll, the public would know the basis of the claim to be eligible to stand because of the requirement that his home address should be on his nomination paper and the details made public.
The Bill adds two new grounds of qualification—occupation of property or having a principal place of work within the area of a local authority; and the

names of people who claim the latter form of qualification would not appear on the electoral roll. Although the nomination paper and the statement of the persons nominated which have to be given by the returning officer would have to contain the home address of that person, it would not show the basis of qualification by which a person with a home address outside the area of the local authority claimed to be able to stand for the council. That information would have to be given to the returning officer by means of the consent to nomination form, which must contain a statement by the person wishing to stand that to the best of his belief he is qualified to stand for election to the council and give the particulars on which that qualification is based.
Both sides in Committee agreed that it was reasonable that people should know, and have the opportunity to know, the basis on which a person standing for the council claimed to be qualified, and we undertook to see to that on Report. The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) put forward a new Clause in Committee with that object.
The purpose of this Clause is to give anyone the right, between the date when nominations are closed and the end of business on the day before the election, to see not only the nomination paper but also the consent to nomination form, so as to check on the basis of qualification claimed by the candidate. I think that this meets wholly the spirit of the new Clause moved in Committee by the Opposition. I do not criticise them for it in any way, but it was not correctly drafted.
I think that it is a fair new Clause and that it will cause little practical difficulty to returning officers or anyone wishing to stand for a council. I believe that it will give the public who are asked to vote anyone to a council the knowledge to which they are entitled of the qualifications of that person.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for meeting the point we made in Committee that there should be a right of inspection.
There is no need for me to go over the ground again, but there is also the point raised later on in our Committee discussion by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen)


that the borough address should appear on the form, because when postal districts were given it was possible to give the impression that a person lived in a borough even though, in fact, he lived outside. The hon. Gentleman even gave us suggestions on how this might be done, in c. 339 of the Committee HANSARD. Did this prove too difficult, or did he, on reflection, think that this should not be done?

Mr. Carlisle: I still do not think that this would be justified—this was to go on the nomination form itself—since this further information will now be available. But since this has been raised again, before the Bill reaches another place we will consider again whether this is necessary.

Mr. Rees: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right in what he says. If he would look again at c. 339, we should be grateful.

Mr. Ray Carter (Birmingham, North-field): I am sorry to have to detain the House at this time of night. I had two Amendments down which, unfortunately, were not called. I rise to relate my points to this Amendment, No. 12—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. Not on this Clause.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: The Government have Argued that the final choice was the electors' that they would know that candidates did not live in the area. But it was not a habit of those elected who had a business in the area to inform the electors that they lived outside. We sought in Committee to provide that information about place of residence was put on the polling notice outside the polling station, and suggested that in big city areas, where the postal area far exceeded the borough area, the district of residence should go on the notice. Does the Clause provide that the home address should go on the notice of poll? [Interruption.] I understand that that is being considered.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

ALTERNATIVE QUALIFICATIONS FOR NOMINATION AND ELECTION TO, AND MEMBERSHIP OF, LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 15, leave out from 'shall' to 'be' in line 18.
I hope that it will be convenient at the same time to discuss Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 14, leave out subsection (4) since Amendment No. 1 is merely a paving Amendment.
The Amendments would delete what was the interpretation provision, Clause 1(4), which would have defined "tenant" as including "statutory tenant", and "principal place of work" by reference to the time anyone had spent working in a particular local authority area as against any other such area. In Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) put forward many different examples of people who were at various times in the areas of different local authorities, and his wisdom persuaded me that the attempt to define created more problems than it solved.
I took the view, as did the Committee generally, that it would be better to delete the interpretation and leave it to the court to decide the interpretation from the simple commonsense point of view, should the matter ever go before a court. This would be on the basis that if asked where his place of work was, the average person—this would go for the vast majority of people—would have no difficulty in saying at once where it was, whereas there might be difficulty if one had to decide the point on the basis of the interpretation provision which was written into the Bill, with its reference to the amount of time spent at the place of work.
As for Amendment No. 5, it has been decided that the first part of subsection (4), which said:
 'tenant' includes a statutory tenant
is unnecessary. The term "statutory tenant" is well known where domestic tenancies are concerned, and this term would not seem appropriate in connection with the 1954 Act when dealing with business tenancies. Again, this


Amendment meets a point which was made in Committee.

Mr. David Weitzman: I congratulate the Government on having had the wisdom to accept the arguments which my hon. Friends and I adduced in Committee. We are grateful for the Amendment, which makes the provision much more satisfactory in that the lawyers are left to see that things are properly done.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'additional'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to consider at the same time the following Amendments: No. 14, in line 20, leave out 'additional'; No. 6, in page 2, line 28, leave out 'additional'; and No. 7, in line 39, leave out 'additional'.

Mr. Carlisle: That is convenient, as the four Amendments taken together delete the word "additional" where it appears in the Bill. This is, therefore, a drafting Amendment. The word "additional" is wholly tautologous in that it refers to additional subsections being added to the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 1, line 20. leave out 'additional'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

12 midnight.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 and insert:
'(bb) his principal or only place of work in the twelve months preceding the day on which he is nominated as a candidate has been in the area of the local authority; or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House also to discuss the following: Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 and insert:
'(ab) his principal or only place of work in the twelve months preceding the day on which he is nominated as a candidate has been in the area of the local authority; or'.
No. 8, in page 4, line 15, after principal', insert 'or only'.
No. 9, in line 46, after 'principal', insert 'or only'.
No. 10, in line 47, after 'resided";' insert 'the words "the whole of" shall be deleted;'.

Mr. Carlisle: This concludes the Government Amendments. The purpose of this group is to rewrite subsection (2) (bb) in regard to the phrase "principal place of work". This meets a point made in Committee by hon. Members who argued that the use of the words "whole of" in the definition of place of work was unsuitable. On reflection the Government agree, and the Amendment merely replaces what was to have been the definition, that somebody was required to have spent
the whole of the twelve months preceding the day on which he is nominated as a candidate".
Instead, the provision will say
his principal or only place of work in the twelve months preceding the day on which he is nominated as a candidate has been in the area of the local authority".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: We are grateful to the Under-Secretary for having considered this point and for having come to the same conclusion as we did. Our joy is somewhat diminished by the fact that the Bill still refers to "a place of work" rather than "a place of employment." It would be proper for the House to be aware that it is possible for a person to qualify to stand as a candidate not because he is employed in a certain local authority area but because he is doing work which may amount to only an hour or two a day and which may be voluntary or little more than recreational activity. We consider that to be an unrealistic basis for giving a person a right to nomination. Nevertheless, we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concession.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 and insert:
'(ab) his principal or only place of work in the twelve months preceding the day on which he is nominated as a candidate has been in the area of the local authority; or'.

Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 14, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 28, leave out 'additional'.

Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 39, leave out 'additional'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 3, line 8, at end insert:
(8) A person shall not be disqualified under section 59 of the Local Government Act 1933 from being a member of any authority for which he is eligible to be a candidate—
(a) by reason only of his being employed by a joint authority of local authorities and that the local authority for which he is eligible appoints delegates to that joint authority or
(b) that he is an employee of a local authority which is an excepted district under the Education Act 1944.
In Committee we dealt with the narrower point of teachers in this context, but we have broadened the matter now because we feel very strongly about it. It is related to what we said on Second Reading in relation to the Government's greatly increasing the number of people who would have the right of nomination even if they did not live in the local authority area but only worked there. We pointed to the lack of right to stand for election to local authorities because of the growth of joint local authority undertakings—boards, transport and other undertakings, colleges of technology and the like. This decreases the opportunity far beyond anything envisaged in Section 59 (2) of the 1933 Act.
The Under-Secretary said in Committee that while he understood that our debates on the subject were in order and was not abrogating to himself the job of Chairman of the Committee, our side had not dealt with the matter in the past. To that we replied that we had not introduced a Measure which brought into qualification large numbers of people who did not live in the area concerned on the ground that there was need to bring fresh blood into local government.
By our Amendment we seek again to deal with the situation where just because a number of authorities are joined together in a water undertaking or the like someone is effectively prevented from nomination for the council in the area in which he lives. In particular, we come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) about excepted districts.

In the debate on 7th May, 1958, the then Mr. Chuter Ede referred to the 1944 Education Act, and said:
We contended that we had left the teachers who were serving on the council which became an excepted district council free for election to that body."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1958; Vol. 587, c. 1278.]
That was the intention in the 1944 Act.
This point has been returned to again and again, and we ask it of the hon. Gentleman again at this late stage. He has greatly increased the number of people who can be nominated for a local authority. Yet there are people of great ability who the Government say, because of the fortuitous arrangements which are made for education, water, and so on, cannot be dealt with now but must be left for some later occasion. That is not a valid argument when the Government have dealt with so many people in the Bill. I hope that we shall hear words of reason from the Under-Secretary. It was an excellent Committee. Surely on this one point, at this pitch of the night, the hon. Gentleman will undertake to meet us.

Mr. Weitzman: I greatly regret that this important Amendment has to be discussed at this late hour. In Committee we on this side put forward a strong case for teachers and employees of a council qualifying to be elected to the council. The Under-Secretary did not resist our argument, but he pointed out that it was a serious matter which should be discussed. It was pointed out to him that Sir Edward Boyle made this statement in 1958:
I can give the House an undertaking that the Government will consider the position of all local government employees and if, as a result of further review, it seems that a change in the law ought to be made, no doubt a suitable occasion could be found."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1958; Vol. 587, c. 1297.]
It was suggested from this side that as this was a Bill dealing with the qualification of persons to be elected to councils it was an ideal vehicle in which the promise made by Sir Edward Boyle could be fulfilled. The way in which the Under-Secretary resisted the inclusion of the Amendment was by saying that it was not the proper way in which it should be done. A promise was made as long ago as 1958. Nothing has been done about it by either a Tory Government or a Labour Government. The Tory Government now have a good opportunity of


carrying through something which cannot be resisted on the merits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has restricted the Amendment to excepted districts under the Education Act and in the words used in paragraph (a) of the Amendment. I rather object to my hon. Friend's not having gone the whole hog. However, this is something. I hope that the Under-Secretary will say that he repents of the argument that he has put forward and will do his duty and accept the Amendment.

Mr. Carter: I apologise for my earlier intervention [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because I think it is necessary to apologise.
A constituent of mine is vitally affected by the Clause. I ask that not only teachers but other officers in local government should be considered. My constituent has been selected to fight for the Labour Party in the municipal elections in Birmingham next year. He is the dental officer for the Warley Borough Council, which is Conservative-controlled. He has been told by the authority that if he is elected he will be sacked.
I ask the Government to extend to this man the same privileges as are being extended to others by the Bill, most of whom are employers. If the Under-Secretary accepts the Amendment to grant exemptions to teachers, I ask him to grant them to other local authority employees and, if he does so, to circularise local authorities, particularly the Warley Borough Council, asking them to make it possible for their employees to stand as and perform their services as members of local authorities.

Mr. Roy Hughes: In Committee on 1st December, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) raised a point to which he received no specific answer.
A constituent of mine, Mr. Alan Giles, is a member of the staff of the Newport and Monmouthshire College of Technology. He is a resident of the county borough of Newport and is included in the town's electoral roll. Is he permitted to stand for the council in the Newport borough? It appears that the town clerk has some doubt about whether the gentleman is eligible. I hope that the Minister can clear up this point.

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: At this hour it is wrong that such an important matter should be brought before the House. It is a disgrace that the Government cannot organise their business so that we can discuss it at a reasonable hour.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I hope that my hon. Friend will resist the honeyed words coming from the benches opposite. It would be a pity to breach a long-established principle for the sake of these hard cases. It is a much wider issue. Hon. Members will recall the perturbation caused when the previous Administration gave permission for certain polytechnic staff to stand for election to their employing authorities.
The words quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) do not commit anyone to do more than consider at the appropriate time. The hon. and learned Gentleman rightly castigated his own party for not dealing with this matter when it took away certain rights of people to stand for election. This Bill restores the position, with a slight addition resulting from the first Maud Report.
If there is a case for examination of the two cases raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) and the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes), this is not the vehicle for that sort of change. We would be merely tinkering with the matter if we allowed employees of two—

Mr. Weitzman: Would not the hon. Gentleman castigate his Government for not taking the earliset opportunity to correct an injustice.

Mr. Finsberg: I am tempted to say what a pity it was that they did not restore the business vote as well. However, I am content for that to come in its Own good time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
There are some grounds for arguing that employees should be eligible to stand for any kind of authority, but it should not be tacked on to this small Measure. The ideal time will be when we come to deal with the major questions of local Government reform, and that will be done in the context of the White Paper that we have been promised.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Present on the Treasury Bench are representatives of the Home Office, the Scottish Office and the Department of the Civil Service. In a matter which is particularly relevant to local government reform, and in view of its implications for local government reform, I cannot understand why there is no representative of the Department of the Environment, which has to consider these matters.
Recently I had occasion to table a Question on regional policy to the Department of Trade and Industry, only to find that the Department of the Environment insisted on horning in on it and giving me an answer which I did not wish to have on regional policy in relation to the environment.
The Under-Secretary of State, a very courteous man, is helping us as much as he can. I hope that he will now tell us why, on an important matter of this kind closely relevant to the reform of local government into which the Department of the Environment purports to be inquiring, we do not have present the Secretary of State or one of the many junior Ministers in his Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) put it to the Prime Minister today that there were too many of them, and the right hon. Gentleman said that there were enough. May we be told why one is not here now to keep a watching brief on a matter so closely related to the reform of local government? Inevitably, when local government is reformed the Department of the Environment will have to take account of the various aspects of the matter which are being discussed tonight.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Carlisle: I have a certain sympathy with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) when he asked why we should be debating a matter of this importance at this hour of the morning. With respect, I take that point, and I then lead on to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg). This issue raises wide and important considerations. We discussed them in detail in Committee on their merits. I said then, and I must repeat now, that it is the Government's view that, important

and wide-ranging as these questions of disqualification are, the present Bill is not the right vehicle for that broader debate or for the proposed change.
We cannot attempt to make amendments piecemeal in relation to the difficult problems of disqualification for standing for election to local councils. These matters, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said, are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Environment, and they are, I submit, matters which must be looked at in a far wider context than an attempt piecemeal to amend Section 59 of the Act.

Mr. Weitzman: But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the matter is of such importance, and the view which he is putting is of such significance, that the House should have an opportunity to discuss whether he is right or wrong, or whether the change should be made now?

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that we have been overtaken by events, by the growth of such bodies as joint water boards? It is possible that a member of staff of a water authority in a county constituency lives in a city constituency, and, by virtue of his residential qualification, he would be able to stand for his city authority, though because of the growth of joint water boards he is disqualified, having been overtaken by events. Is not that an injustice which should be put right?

Mr. Carlisle: With respect, that is the point on which the Amendment is mainly based. It refers in particular to joint authorities. I must resist the Amendment. It raises the whole question of disqualification for standing for local councils, which, as I say, is a matter for the Department of the Environment, not for the Home Office, and not one which can be dealt with by piecemeal Amendment of this kind.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) raised a constituency matter. There is no legislation at present requiring employers to permit members of their staff to have time to attend council meetings. This was considered by the Maud Committee on the Management of Local Government,


which concluded that it would be impracticable to compel employers to release staff or to legislate in this field. We have no evidence to suggest that employers generally are being unhelpful about the release of staff, and we do not believe that this is a situation which legislation would help.
As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes), he is right when he says that I did not answer a point raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) in Committee. I know that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I say that on that day he was trying to serve on two separate Committees and, having raised that point, he unfortunately had to leave when I was speaking and that was probably why I failed to deal with it. My answer would not necessarily have been helpful. All I can say is that it is an extremely difficult question whether the hon. Gentleman's constituent is or is not entitled to stand for this local authority. All I can suggest is that he should write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Kaufman: The Under-Secretary is, as always, particularly courteous to the House. He has referred to the Department of the Environment. Can we be informed why the Department is not represented on the Front Bench on this Bill which is totally relevant to the Department? I see the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the House is here, another courteous hon. Gentleman. Cannot someone from the Department be sent for so that this can be taken up?

Mr. Carlisle: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, this is a Home Office Bill covering England and Scotland. I am here representing the Home Office and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is here representing the Scottish Office. He cannot, with respect, ask that every Minister should be represented throughout any Bill in case at any time any point is raised affecting his Department. He must accept that the people in the Department of the Environment are capable of reading HANSARD.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Could I point out the fact that the Secretary of State for Wales is, as I understand it, responsible for local government in Wales but—

[Interruption.]—there is no one present from his Department?

Mr. Carlisle: I am afraid that in the noise I did not catch that point. The only Amendment being considered, and all the discussion, despite the presence of some Welsh Members, is related to Scotland and England. Anyone who was on the Committee knows that Welsh matters were adequately dealt with.
Having said that this is not a matter which the Government believe to be capable of being dealt with in this way, I must also say that I am advised that this Amendment is based on a misunderstanding of what the law is with regard to disqualification on joint authorities. I am told that a person employed by a joint authority of local authorities such as a joint water board is not disqualified by virtue of Section 59 from being elected a member of a constituent authority of the board. I gather that he would be disqualified from being appointed a member of the committee but he is apparently not disqualified by Section 59 from being a member of any one of the constituent local authorities.
What I understand normally happens is that it is the practice to provide in the Instrument setting up the water board that the person shall not stand. Section 59 with which this Amendment attempts to deal is not a Section on which a person's disqualification from being a member of that joint authority is based.
As to the second part of the Amendment, in Committee I conceded that this raised a difficulty. It appears that the teacher is caught by the excepted district as well as the main employing authority and it may be that a teacher in the area of a county council is able to stand neither for the county council nor for the district council of the area in which he lives if the district council is an excepted district for education purposes under the county council.
I have never disputed that there is a considerable point in what the hon. Member said with regard to this double disqualification. I can only repeat, and urge on the House, that these matters are extremely complex. They should be looked at in the whole matter of disqualification. They raise matters on which, as we heard in Committee, people have many arguments on the merits on


both sides. I must, therefore, ask the House to resist the Amendment at this stage.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: At the seventh and last Sitting of the Committee, when we dealt with this matter, the Under-Secretary courteously promised, at col. 334, to discuss this matter with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I would like to know, and I am sure that the House would like

Division No. 47.]
AYES
[12.25 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Gilbert, Dr. John
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Golding, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Grant, John D. (Islington, East)
Molloy, William


Ashton, Joe
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Atkinson, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Barnes, Michael
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Barnett, Joel
Hamling, William
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Roland


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bishop, E, S.
Hattersley, Roy
Murray, Ronald King


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
O'Halloran, Michael


Booth, Albert
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Malley, Brian


Bradley, Tom
Hilton, W. S.
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Horam, John
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Huckfield, Leslie
Palmer, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pendry, Tom


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hunter, Adam
Pentland, Norman


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Janner, Greville
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Prescott, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Probert, Arthur


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Barry, Flint, E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Judd, Frank
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dalyell, Tam
Kaufman, Gerald
Roper, John


Davidson, Arthur
Kerr, Russell
Rose, Paul B.


Davits, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kinnock, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lambie, David
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamond, James
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)
Latham Arthur
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Deakins, Eric
Lawson, George
Sillars, James


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Leonard, Dick
Silverman, Julius


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lestor, Miss Joan
Skinner, Dennis


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Small, William


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spearing, Nigel


Dormand, J. D.
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stallard, A. W.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dunn, James A.
McBride, Neil
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dunnett, Jack
McCann, John
Strang, Gavin


Eadie, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McElhone, Frank
Swain, Thomas


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McGuire, Michael
Taverne, Dick


Ellis, Tom
Mackie, John
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Tinn, James


Evans, Fred
Maclennan, Robert
Tomney, Frank


Fernyhough, E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Torney, Tom


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marquand, David
Varley, Eric G.


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wainwright, Edwin


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Foot, Michael
Meacher, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ford, Ben
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wallace, George


Forrester, John
Mendelson, John
Watkins, David


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce
Weitzman, David

to know, whether that conversation has yet taken place and, if so, with what result.

Mr. Carlisle: Obviously, what I said in Committee has been drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 229.

Wells, John (Maidstone)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)



White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Whitehead, Phillip
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Woof, Robert
Mr. Kenneth Marks.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Normanton, Tom


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gummer, Selwyn
Nott, John


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Gurden, Harold
Onslow, Cranley


Astor, John
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Atkins, Humphrey
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Osborn, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bell, Ronald
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Haselhurst, Alan
Percival, Ian


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hastings, Stephen
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Havers, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Biffen, John
Hawkins, Paul
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Biggs-Davison, John
Hay, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Blaker, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hicks, Robert
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Body, Richard
Higgine, Terence L.
Raison, Timothy


Boscawen, Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Redmond, Robert


Bowden, Andrew
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bray, Ronald
Holt, Miss Mary
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Brewis, John
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hunt, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Buck, Antony
James, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rost, Peter


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jessel, Toby
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Carlisle, Mark
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Arthur, (Northants, S.)
Scott, Nicholas


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Jopling, Michael
Sharples, Richard


Chichester-Clark, R.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Churchill, W. S.
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kershaw, Anthony
Simeons, Charles


Clegg, Walter
Kilfedder, James
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Cockeram, Eric
Kimball, Marcus
Soref, Harold


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Spence, John


Coombs, Derek
Kinsey, J. R.
Sproat, Iain


Cooper, A. E.
Kirk, Peter
Stainton, Keith


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Critchley, Julian
Lane, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Crouch, David
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stokes, John


Crowder, F. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Curran, Charles
Le Marchant, Spencer
Tapsell, Peter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dean, Paul
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Loveridge, John
Tebbit, Norman


Digby, Simon Wingfield
MacArthur, Ian
Temple, John M.


Dixon, Piers
McCrindle, R. A.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Drayson, G. B.
McLaren, Martin
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Dykes, Hugh
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Tilney, John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Madel, David
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Emery, Peter
Mather, Carol
Trew, Peter


Eyre, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fell, Anthony
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fidler, Michael
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Miscampbell, Norman
Walters, Dennis


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Ward, Dame Irene


Fowler, Norman
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Warren, Kenneth


Fox, Marcus
Moate, Roger
Weatherill, Bernard


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Molyneaux, James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gibson-Watt, David
Monks, Mrs. Connie
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Monro, Hector
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wiggin, Jerry


Goodhart, Philip
More, Jasper
Wilkinson, John


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick




Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Gorst, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Worsley, Marcus


Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Younger, Hn. George


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Murton, Oscar



Gray, Hamish
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Green, Alan
Neave, Airey
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Grieve, Percy
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Keith Speed.

Schedule

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF SCHEDULE 3 TO THE REPRESENTA TION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1949 (SCOTTISH LOCAL ELECTIONS RULES)

Amendments made: No. 8, in page 4, line 15, after 'principle', insert 'or only'.

No. 9, in page 4, line 46, after 'principal', insert 'or only'.

No. 10, in page 4, line 47, after 'resided";' insert 'the words
the whole of" shall be deleted;'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

12.38 a.m.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I propose to be very brief, as I think that anyone who knows that there were seven full sittings on a one-Clause Bill will appreciate that the Bill was debated fairly thoroughly in Committee.
I will restate the Bill's purpose, which is to provide two new qualifications for people who wish to stand for election to local authorities: first, if they occupy property within the area of a local authority, and, second, if they have their place of work within the area of that local authority.
The Bill widens the field from which candidates for election can be chosen. It recognises that a person can have an interest in the area in which he works just as much as an interest in the area in which he lives, and it will give those who wish to serve their fellow citizens in the capacity of councillor the opportunity to do so. The Bill, when implemented, will enable many people serving on local councils who have given many years' service to their localities to continue to provide that service.
We have been told throughout that this is a controversial Bill. I cannot see why the Opposition should take that view. I should have thought that a Bill which aimed to enable people who work in an area and have an interest in it to stand in that area for election to the council would have been welcomed by everybody. I am surprised that the Opposition are apparently determined to express their objection to the Bill, and to argue that we should prevent such people from standing as councillors.

12.40 a.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Bill was born out of two ideas. The first was to end the Representation of the People Act, 1969, which itself ended the property qualification for membership of local authorities. This is a retrograde step, but I note that the Government at least have not brought back the property qualification franchise. The second idea was that the Redcliffe-Maud Report argued that people should have an interest in the area in which they work, and thus the Bill extends the franchise to the local government area in which people work.
It is odd that the Minister should think it wrong that we should object to the extension of the qualifications to people who are now debarred by the 1933 Act and subsequent legislation from standing for election to local authorities. It may be that one reason why the Government did not give the vote to the property-qualified person was that those who work in the area would also have to be given the vote, which would raise great problems.
We have lost on the main point of "one man, one vote", but we believe that even in local government it will come back to this. We can only regret that the Government have sought to widen the field of candidature for local authorities in this way when they have not been prepared to widen the field by dealing with disqualifications under the 1933 Act. It only reinforces my view that the extension to those who work is only window-dressing to cover the need of the Government to bring back the property qualification by the use of a new word "occupation".
The Bill was born of incompatible parentage and cannot deal with the problems of local government. The Bill will continue after local government reform, when the areas will be very much larger, which would have solved many of the problems of people who, because of suburban development, live just outside the borough in which they formerly lived. It is a bad Bill, it tinkers for party advantage, and that is why we shall vote against it.

12.43 a.m.

Mr. Dick Douglas: The Bill applies to Scotland, and it should not do so. A


Scottish Minister is sitting on the Government Benches and he has said nothing about Scotland. In answer to previous questions about Amendments, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department misled the House on the Scottish issue. He referred to water hoards in England and Wales. So far as his answer related to England and Wales it was accurate, but so far as it related to Scotland it was inaccurate.
People who are employed in water boards in Scotland are statutorily prohibited from standing for election to local authorities which are covered by the 13 water boards in Scotland. The Scottish Minister can contradict or substantiate what I say. The Bill as applied to Scotland is construed to the Tory Party's advantage to relate not to the whole of Scotland but to a few local authorities.

Mr. Carlisle: I would point out that the Amendment moved by the Opposition deliberately limited itself to England and Wales and did not refer to Scotland.

Mr. Douglas: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but there was an indication that it would not apply to water boards and it looked as if it would apply comprehensively.
The Scottish Minister on the Government Front Bench might argue that the Government have a mandate in Scotland for the Bill. They certainly have no moral mandate in Scotland. The legislation applies to a few local authorities and to a few Tory councillors who wish to maintain an advantage.
There is a spurious attachment in the Bill to the matter of employment, but the real matter to which the Bill relates is ownership of property or business. That is what we object to. We argue that if there is to be comprehensive reform of local government, legislation such as this has no place in this House.

12.46 a.m.

Mr. Marks: The Bill in no way increases the number of people eligible to become councillors. Every single person affected by its provisions already has the right to stand for the council in the area in which he or she lives. Our Amendment which sought to give a right to those people who cannot stand for any council has been defeated by the Government. The Bill gives people with property or

occupational interests the right to stand for council. The Bill is bad because this area is so difficult to define. The only people who will not benefit from the Bill are the housewives who do not go out to work and the people who live and work in the same borough. The Bill has been brought in for political reasons, and we shall vote against it.

12.48 a.m.

Mr. Alec Jones: I am sorry to intervene at this late stage—

Hon. Members: Why bother?

Mr. Jones: It seems to meet with the disapproval of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they should be kept here until 10 minutes to one o'clock to discuss a Bill which is of some importance for a large number of people.
I would not have intervened had the hon. Gentleman in moving the Third Reading not said that the Bill was intended to enable people with an interest in a particular area to serve the local authority in that area. I suggest that that is only partially true. What the Bill really does is to give to certain people the opportunity to serve on two local authorities, either the local authority in whose area they live or the local authority in whose area they work.
This is a very bad Bill. Local authority employees are excluded from serving on local authorities by which they are employed. But there is an even stronger case when we come to look at the excepted districts in the matter of education. I represent such a district and was for 13 years a school teacher in such an area. School teachers not only could not serve on that local authority but were denied the right to serve on the county council. That means that whilst the Bill gives some people the opportunity to serve on two local authorities, many thousands of people—school teachers—who have a part to play in the civic life of this country are denied the right to serve on either the local borough authority or the county authority. If the Minister believes that that is right or reasonable, then he must live in a different world from that in which I live.

12.50 a.m.

Sir G. de Freitas: It is difficult for this House to deal with these important


problems when they are brought before it at this hour of the morning. I very much hope that the Government will not return to this practice.

Division No. 48.]
AYES
[12.51 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Grieve, Percy
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Gummer, Selwyn
Murton, Oscar


Astor, John
Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Atkins, Humphrey
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Neave, Airey


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Normanton, Tom


Balniel, Lord
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nott, John


Bell, Ronald
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Onslow, Cranley


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Haselhurst, Alan
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John


Biffen, John
Havers, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Blaker, Peter
Hay, John
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hayhoe, Barney
Percival, Ian


Body, Richard
Hicks, Robert
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Boscawen, R. T.
Higgins, Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hiley, Joseph
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bowden, Andrew
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bray, Ronald
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Brewis, John
Holt, Miss Mary
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Raison, Timothy


Brocklefoank-Fowler, Christopher
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Redmond, Robert


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hunt, John
Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)


Buck, Antony
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bullus, Sir Eric
James, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Carlisle, Mark
Jessel, Toby
Robert, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Chapman, Sydney
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jopling, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Churchill, W. S.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rost, Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Clegg, Walter
Kershaw, Anthony
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Cockeram, Eric
Kilfedder, James
Scott, Nicholas


Cooke, Robert
Kimball, Marcus
Sharples, Richard


Coombs, Derek
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Corfield, F. V.
Kinsey, J. R.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Cormack, Patrick
Kirk, Peter
Simeons, Charles


Critchley, Julian
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Crouch, David
Knox, David
Soref, Harold


Crowder, F. P.
Lane, David
Spence, John


Curran, Charles
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sproat, Iain


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stainton, Keith


Dean, Paul
Le Merchant, Spencer
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Dixon, Piers
Longden, Gilbert
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Drayson, G. B.
Loveridge, John
Stokes, John


Dykes, Hugh
MacArthur, Ian
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McCrindle, R. A.
Tapsell, Peter


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Fell, Anthony
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Tebbit, Norman


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Madel, David
Temple, John M.


Fidler, Michael
Mather, Carol
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fowler, Norman
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tilney, John


Fox, Marcus
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fry, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman
Trew, Peter


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mitchell,Lt.-Co1.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gibson-Watt, David
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Moate, Roger
Vickers, Dame Joan


Goodhart, Philip
Molyneaux, James
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Goodhew, Victor
Money, Ernie
Walters, Dennis


Gorst, John
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Ward, Dame Irene


Gower, Raymond
Monro, Hector
Warren, Kenneth


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Weatherill, Bernard


Gray, Hamish
More, Jasper
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Green, Alan
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
White, Roger (Gravesend)

Question Put:—

The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 196.

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wiggin, Jerry
Worsley, Marcus
Mr. Keith Speed and


Wilkinson, John
Younger, Hn. George
Mr. Jim Fortescue.


Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick






NOES


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamling, William
Murray, Ronald King


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Harrison, Walter (Wakefletd)
O'Malley, Brian


Atkinson, Norman
Hattersley, Roy
Orme, Stanley


Barnes, Michael
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Oswald, Thomas


Barnett, Joel
Heffer, Eric S.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hilton, W. S.
Palmer, Arthur


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Horam, John
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Bishop, E. S.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pavitt, Laurie


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Huckfield, Leslie
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pendry, Tom


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prescott, John


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Probert, Arthur


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Janner, Greville
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cant, R. B.
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roper, John


Coleman, Donald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rose, Paul B.


Concannon, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kerr, Russell
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Lamble, David
Sillars, James


Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James
Silverman, Julius


Davidson, Arthur
Latham, Arthur
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lawson, George
Small, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Leonard, Dick
Spriggs, Leslie


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Stallard, A. W.


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Strang, Gavin


Dempsey, James
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Doig, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Swain, Thomas


Dormand, J. D.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taverne, Dick


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
McBride, Neil
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McCann, John
Tinn, James


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCartney, Hugh
Tomney, Frank


Dunn, James A.
McElhone, Frank
Torney, Tom


Dunnett, Jack
McGuire, Michael
Urwin, T. W.


Eadie, Alex
Mackie, John
Varley, Eric G.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackintosh, John P.
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Maclennan, Robert
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Ellis, Tom
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


English, Michael
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wallace, George


Evans, Fred
Marquand, David
Watkins, David


Fernyhough, E.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Weitzman, David


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Meacher, Michael
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Whitehead, Phillip


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mendelson, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Foot, Michael
Millan, Bruce
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Ford, Ben
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Forrester, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Molloy, William
Woof, Robert


Gilbert, Dr. John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Golding, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, John D. (Islingon, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Mr. Kenneth Marks.


Hamilton, James (Bothwetl)
Moyle, Roland

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE SCHEME

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Joseph Hiley: You will be relieved to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the case that I have to state relies entirely on facts, and will not require any embroidery from me.
Unfortunately, over the last few years, many wool textile mills have closed down because of shortage of demand or rationalisation and mergers. The story that I have to tell is sad and almost incredible. One of my constituents had been an executive director in a worsted spinning mill for about 17 years, and became redundant as a result of a merger in the group. He registered at the local office of the Department of Employment, but soon realised that that was unlikely to find him a suitable job, partly because he was unemployed.
Because of his graduated pension and his children, he was entitled to benefit of £17-plus a week, but, as an industrious Yorkshireman, he was not content to wait for something to turn up. Learning that there was on the market an old-established export business in Bradford engaged in the sale of woollen and worsted yarns, he considered acquiring it. It would have meant a job for him, and would have saved the taxpayer £17-plus every week. To complete his investigations, he thought it wise to go abroad to investigate the conditions in which the firm operated and what the prospects were for the export of yarns to the Continent.
He reported his intentions to the manager of the local office of the Department, who told him, promptly and correctly, that if he were absent from Great Britain he could not continue to receive the benefit which he had enjoyed for a few weeks after he became redundant in May. This regulation is one of the original ones concerning unemployment problems and was intended for a category of unskilled labour. It said that those who continued to enjoy the benefit must be capable of and available for work.
Conditions have changed, as it was made clear to me when I considered this

case. Had this man gone to the North of Scotland or the West of England, where there are considerable wool textile interests, it would have taken him longer to return to Yorkshire than from Copenhagen or wherever he went on the Continent to investigate the possibility of making a go of this exporting business.
In the knowledge that he would be deprived of his £17 or more a week, my constituent decided to go to Scandinavia to look into this matter. He spent 14 days there, and I imagine that that cost him about £280, at £20 a day—plus, of course, the £34 or so he lost by leaving the country. He also decided to visit prospective customers in Germany, where he was involved in a similar expense.
Instead of being deprived of benefit, this man should have been encouraged to help himself, particularly at a time when he was suffering financial hardship. I doubt whether the countries he visited treat their nationals in the same way.
I sought an explanation of the attitude that was adopted towards my constituent, and I was told that the strict rules governing people being absent where necessary because of the number of people who were ready to abuse the system. But in this case one could not possibly imagine that my constituent wanted to go abroad to, say, enjoy the winter sports. In any event, if that had been his intention, there are ample ways of getting round the regulations.
In the old days a man, particularly if unskilled, was asked to explain what steps he had taken to secure employment, what firms he had visited and to whom he had applied for a job. A man in the position of my constituent could similarly be invited to explain where he had been, and in this case there would have been ample evidence from the names of the firms he visited and his passport. If necessary, the Department could always call on our resident consul in the country concerned.
I have thought a lot about this case and I am ashamed that a Tory Minister should have been prepared to stand by and see a man of this excellent type being discouraged from helping himself. He should not have needed to make additional sacrifices while many are prepared to wait for something to turn up. I submit that it is not in the national


interest that a regulation such as the one I have described should be allowed to operate, taking account of the changed circumstances.
Apart from the national interest, there is clearly a human problem here. I urge my hon. Friend to assist in order to sustain ambitious and industrious individuals. I feel very deeply about this case because I fear that in the present state of the wool textile industry this problem may arise again and again. Our entry into the Common Market may or may not come about, but increasingly one can see opportunities for our own people in various parts of the Continent. For these reasons, I urge a more sympathetic consideration of the problem of my hon. Friend.

11 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Hiley) for raising this important point in regard to the administration of our National Insurance Scheme. It enables me to say to him at once that this Government certainly do intend in every possible way to encourage initiative—to encourage people who wish to stand on their own feet—and that applies as much to social policy as to economic policy. But there are difficulties with regard to the case my hon. Friend has mentioned with which I shall briefly deal.
My hon Friend said that here was the case of an industrious Yorkshireman—and there are many such in that great county, as I know from personal experience—who, unfortunately, lost his job after a comparatively long period of activity and, therefore, looked round for possibilities of continuing in the type of work to which he was used—wool textiles. Finding no possibilities of similar employment here, he decided to look abroad. I fully understand my hon. Friend when he says that while at home his constituent was able to draw unemployment benefit at the rate of £17 plus, whereas when he went abroad seeking opportunities there he was not able to draw it. I fully understand how my hon. Friend feels about that, but I must remind him and the House of the way in which the regulations, which are all we can now discuss, operate, and the reasons for the control mechanism.
My hon. Friend is concerned about the effects of Section 49(1) of the National Insurance Act, 1965, which lays down, among other things, that, except where regulations otherwise provide, a person shall be disqualified from receiving any benefit for any period during which that person is absent from Great Britain. No exceptions have been made for unemployment benefit, and disqualification is absolute for periods spent abroad. General exceptions have been made in regard to long-term benefits—as, for example, widows' benefit and retirement pension—and certain limited exemptions in the case of sickness benefit if the absence is for a specific period and for treatment of the incapacity.
Let me now tell my hon. Friend and the House how the system works in regard to unemployment benefit and why these restrictions exist at present. First, let me make it clear that all claims are decided by independent adjudicating authorities in strict accordance with the Act and the regulations. The first of these authorities is the insurance officer, and there is right of appeal to the local tribunal and, finally, to the National Insurance Commissioner. Neither the Secretary of State nor anyone else has power to vary their decisions in any way, and the benefit decisions are based on insurance principles and apply equally to all claimants within broad categories of contributors.
Unemployment benefit is payable only to people with a recent record of work for an employer. Self-employed people are not covered against the risk of unemployment, partly because of the difficulty of control of claims, as my hon. Friend mentioned, and they do not qualify for unemployment benefit.
A key condition for getting benefit is availability for suitable employment on each day for which benefit is claimed. Availability means more than just being without a job and hence available in the physical sense. The condition calls for a subjective assessment of the claimant's attitude of mind and is difficult to administer even when claimants are in this country and can be contacted quickly should a suitable vacancy occur. The disqualification in Section 49(1) is based on the fact that while abroad a claimant cannot in any real sense be available for employment in this country, because he is not on the spot to take advantage


of jobs that may be notified to the employment exchange, attend interviews or otherwise further his employment prospects. The essence of the present system is being available for work and for interview in this country.
The system is administered through the local offices of the Department of Employment. My hon. Friend said that it is quicker nowadays to get to France than it is to the South-West of England or the North of England. I accept that. I also accept that conditions have changed. Equally, we have even in the remoter parts of these islands our local employment exchanges which are available to do the policing work and to ensure that benefit goes only to those who are entitled to it, whereas we do not have this type of machinery in other countries. This is one of the main reasons why the regulations are as they are.
My hon. Friend mentioned the question of abuse and made some suggestions which he thought would enable us to ensure that changed regulations would prevent abuse. I assure my hon. Friend that I will carefully consider his suggestions, but he will agree that we should be careful in these days when there is natural concern about the abuse and

misuse of social security benefits that we do not introduce changes which, however right they may appear in individual cases, would be either very difficult to police or could be policed only at the price of substantial additional cost and substantial additional staff. We must be very careful that any changes have adequate checks against abuse and misuse.
I hope that my hon. Friend will think that those are very sound reasons why the receipt of unemployment benefit under present arrangements is restricted to those who are readily available for work and, therefore, are in this country.
However, I accept that conditions have changed since this provision was introduced. The Government are engaged in examining the whole of the National Insurance arrangements. Although I cannot hold out any firm commitment that it will be possible to make changes in this direction, I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that this will be one of the aspects of the arrangements which we shall be examining. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this question and for the suggestions that he has made.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past One o'clock.